McCandless FinalEIR 20160114 PDF

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project
Final EnvironmEntal impact rEport

January 14, 2016
State Clearinghouse
#2015011051
Milpitas Unified School District

1331 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Page i
MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MCCANDLESS DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Changes to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Final EIR Organization .................................................................................................... 1-3
Chapter 2 Additional Information ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Design .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 School Design Awards............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.2 Vapor Barrier as Part of Project .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 City of Milpitas District Project / Houret Drive Fire Access ................................. 2-2
2.2 Removal Action Workplan .............................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Recycled Water for Fugitive Dust Control ...................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Personal Rapid Transit ..................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Changes to Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 2-4
2.6 References ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
Chapter 3 Draft EIR Errata and Revisions ........................................................................... 3-1
3.1 EIR Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 EIR Summary................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Description Chapter 2 ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Transportation Chapter 4 .............................................................................................. 3-4
3.5 Aesthetics Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................... 3-5
3.6 Air Quality Chapter 6.................................................................................................... 3-5
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Chapter 9 ................................................................ 3-5
3.8 Hydrology Chapter 10................................................................................................... 3-8
3.9 Land Use and Planning Chapter 11 .............................................................................. 3-8
3.10 Alternatives Chapter 15 ................................................................................................ 3-8
Chapter 4 Responses to Draft EIR Comments ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Response To Comments from DTSC .............................................................................. 4-9
4.2 Response to Comments from the City of Milpitas......................................................... 4-23
4.3 Responses to Comments from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ....
........................................................................................................................................ 4-31
4.4 Responses to Comments from Caltrans ......................................................................... 4-41
4.5 Responses to Comments from Rob Means .................................................................... 4-47
4.6 References ...................................................................................................................... 4-51
Chapter 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................. 5-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Summary of Agency and Public Comments Received on the Draft EIR .................... 4-1
Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................... 5-3
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix K Draft EIR / Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR Distribution List
McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Final EIR January 2016
Page ii
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

Acronym / Symbol
Full Phrase or Description
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
AIACC
American Institute of Architects California Council
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP
Best Management Practice
C.A.S.H.
Coalition for Adequate Student Housing
CALEEMOD
California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CBC
California Building Code
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW)
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CEFPI
Council of Educational Facility Planners
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
dB
Decibel
dBA
Decibels, A-weighted
DSA
Division of the State Architect
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
GHG
Greenhouse Gas(es)
LID
Low Impact Development
MLD
Most Likely Descendant
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MTCO2e
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
MUSD
NAHC
Native American Heritage Commission
NOA
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOP
Notice of Preparation
PA
PCB
PEA
Public Address
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Pg.
Page
PRT
Personal Rapid Transit

Page iii
Page iv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

Acronym / Symbol
RAW
SCH
Full Phrase or Description

Removal Action Workplan
State Clearinghouse
SNA
Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TASP
Transit Area Specific Plan
TDM
Travel Demand Management
TK
Transitional Kindergarten
TIA
Transportation Impact Analysis
UP
Union Pacific
USEPA
United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
VCA
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement
VTA
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Page 1-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Milpitas Unified
School Districts (MUSD) McCandless Drive Elementary School Project. This new, state-of-theart, transitional kindergarten (TK) through sixth grade (TK-6) elementary school project would
be located on approximately 8.4 acres of land on McCandless Drive, north of the intersection of
McCandless Drive and Montague Expressway, in the southwestern portion of the City of
Milpitas, in Santa Clara County.
The proposed MUSD elementary school facilities would be located at 1750 and 1660
McCandless Drive. This project location consists of three undeveloped, City-owned land parcels
envisioned by the City of Milpitas and the MUSD to become a joint school and park site. Soils at
the site contain arsenic, naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) that require remediation before proceeding with property acquisition and school
development. Site remediation would occur under the oversight of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), and would require the DTSCs review and approval of workplans
and other documents containing procedures intended to ensure the release or potential release of
hazardous materials from the site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and safety
and the environment (DTSC Site ID 204264-11; Envirostor ID No. 60001954).
The MUSD anticipates starting remedial activities in the first quarter of 2016 and school
construction activities in June 2016 and is planning to open the new school in time for the 20182019 school year (i.e., August 2018). When completed, the proposed elementary school would
operate on a traditional schedule and would have the capacity to accommodate up to 800
elementary students and 50 staff. The MUSD would enter into a joint use agreement with the
City to provide for the joint use, operation, and maintenance of outdoor playing fields and other
physical education / recreation areas at the new school and adjacent, future City park. The
MUSD, in coordination with the City of Milpitas, would also widen and make other
improvements to McCandless Drive which would promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic
into and out of the proposed School Site, including a new traffic signal at the intersection of
McCandless Drive and DeLong Lane (the main entrance to the proposed school).
Per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR shall
consist of:
1.1
The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
Comments and recommendations on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The MUSD determined that the implementation of the McCandless Drive Elementary School
Project has the potential to have a significant impact on the environment and that an EIR would
be prepared pursuant to CEQA. The MUSD issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting for the Draft EIR on January 30, 2015. The MUSD hosted the public
Page 1-2
Introduction
scoping meeting on February 12, 2015 at its Administrative Offices in the City of Milpitas, CA.
Oral and written comments were received in response to the NOP from agencies and members of
the public and were summarized in section 3.2 of the Draft EIR and presented in full in
Appendix B to the Draft EIR. Agencies commenting on the NOP included the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the
City of Milpitas. Two interested individuals also commented on the NOP.
Preparation of the Draft EIR involved addressing comments on the NOP, reviewing project plans
and documents, conducting additional research, and evaluating potentially significant adverse
impacts pursuant to CEQA. The Draft EIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts and
alternatives that could reasonably achieve most of the objectives for the project and avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the
project.
The Draft EIR was distributed through the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2015011051) and was
sent directly to agencies and members of the public. On November 13, 2015, a Notice of
Completion for the Draft EIR was sent to the California Governors Office of Planning and
Research, State Clearinghouse, and a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR was posted at the
Santa Clara County Clerks Office and mailed to a list of agencies, organizations, and the general
public, including businesses and residents adjacent to the School Site. The distribution list for the
Draft EIR is included as new Appendix K to the EIR. In addition, the Notice of Availability was
published in the Milpitas Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the project area, posted at
multiple locations on the perimeter of the proposed School Site that were visible to the general
public, and posted at the MUSDs main offices at 1331 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA.
The Draft EIR for the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project was distributed to public
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day comment period. Hard copies and/or compact discs
with electronic EIR files were distributed to the State Clearinghouse and nine other agencies and
organizations. Hard copies of the EIR were also made available for review at the MUSDs main
offices in Milpitas and at the Milpitas Library. In addition, the Draft EIR was presented to the
MUSDs Board of Education at its November 24, 2015 meeting.
The Draft EIR was circulated for review between November 13, 2015 and December 28, 2015.
The MUSD received no oral comments and five written comment letters on the Draft EIR. Upon
completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant comments raised with
respect to the environment were prepared and incorporated into this Final EIR. Written responses
to comments received from public agencies have been made available to those agencies at least
10 days before the MUSD considers certification of the Final EIR. The comments received on
the Draft EIR and their responses will be considered by the MUSDs Board of Education when
deciding whether or not to approve the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project and certify
the project EIR.
1.2
CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
CEQA anticipates the public review process will elicit information that can result in modification
of the project design and refined impact analysis to reduce potential environmental effects of the
project. As provided in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, when significant new information is
added to the EIR after public noticing of the Draft EIR, the document must be recirculated to
give the public a meaningful opportunity for review. Significant new information is defined as 1)
a new significant environmental impact, 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact requiring new mitigation, or 3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation
Introduction
Page 1-3
measure considerably different from those previously analyzed that would clearly reduce
environmental impacts. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the
EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
This Final EIR includes the following modifications to the Draft EIR:
Additional information that provides more background and context for the EIRs setting
and impact analysis.
Revisions to Draft EIR Mitigation Measures AIR-1, HAZ-1, and TRA-2A. These
revisions clarify and amplify the requirements in these measures that reduce and/or avoid
potentially significant impacts that could occur with implementation of the McCandless
Drive Elementary School Project.
Text changes throughout the document to provide clarity to the project description,
environmental setting, and impact analyses, make minor text corrections, or fix
grammatical or typographic errors.
These revisions do not constitute considerably different changes in the project description,
environmental setting, conclusions of the environmental analysis, or in the mitigation measures
proposed to be implemented or otherwise provide significant new information that would require
recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.
1.3
FINAL EIR ORGANIZATION
The Final EIR for the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project is organized as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, explains the contents of a Final EIR and the CEQA review
process for the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project.
Chapter 2, Additional Information, describes and summarizes additional information

related to the environmental analysis of the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project
and the effect this information has on the discussions contained in the Draft EIR.
Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, includes the changes to the Draft EIR needed to
address changes to the physical and regulatory setting, respond to comments, and clarify
or amplify the information provided in the Draft EIR.
Chapter 4, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, includes a copy of the

comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to these comments.
Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, includes the MUSDs

program for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of mitigation measures
incorporated into the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project EIR.
Appendix K, Draft EIR / Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR Distribution List,

includes a list of agencies, organizations, and members of the public that were sent the
Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR and / or the Draft EIR.
In accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR for the McCandless
Drive Elementary School Project consists of this document and the November 13, 2015 Draft
EIR, Volumes 1 and 2.

Page 1-4
Introduction

Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This chapter presents additional information relevant to the environmental analysis of the
McCandless Drive Elementary School Project. As discussed below, this new information
clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR. None of the new information
results in new significant environmental impacts or substantially increases the severity of the
environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR, and the new information does not involve
feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that the MUSD is electing not to implement.
As such, this new information is not considered significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15088.5 and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
2.1
PROJECT DESIGN
The MUSD is providing additional information on the project design. This information does not
change the physical environmental setting nor the impact analyses contained in the Draft EIR.
2.1.1
School Design Awards
The Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) and the American Institute of Architects,
California Council (AIACC) awarded the conceptual McCandless Drive Elementary School
design the Award of Honor in the Project In Design category at the 2016 C.A.S.H./AIACC
Leroy F. Greene Design and Planning Awards Program. C.A.S.H. is a membership program,
containing over 1,500 school districts, county offices, private sector businesses, and others in the
school facilities industry. C.A.S.H. was formed to help promote, develop, and support state and
local funding for K-12 construction. In addition, in October 2015, the proposed McCandless
Drive Elementary School design received the Design Concept Award from the Association for
Learning Environments LearningSCAPES program. Formerly the Council of Education Facility
Planners International (CEFPI), the Association for Learning Environments sole mission is to
improve the places where children learn by advocating for excellence in student learning
environments. The Association for Learning Environments Architectural Awards Program is the
world's largest juried exhibit recognizing exceptional planning and inspired architectural design
of high quality learning environments.
2.1.2
Vapor Barrier as Part of Project
The Draft EIR contained conflicting information regarding the installation of a vapor barrier
during project construction. Section 9.1.2.4 of the Draft EIR (pg. 9-8) indicated building vapor /
moisture barriers are standard construction practices, whereas the discussion under Impact HAZ1 and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 indicates a vapor / moisture barrier was being incorporated
into the project as mitigation.
The MUSD is clarifying that the installation of a vapor / moisture barrier is a standard
construction practice that has been included and scoped in preliminary construction cost
estimates. As such, it is part of the proposed project and not a mitigation measure needed to
avoid or reduce soil gas risks associated with site contamination. Applicable building codes such
as the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and the CALGREEN code contain requirements for
concrete slab foundations or concrete slab-on-ground floors to have a capillary break that
consists of a four-inch-thick base of clean aggregate with a vapor retarder in direct contact with
concrete or other equivalent capillary break. Chapter 1907A of the 2013 CBC specifies a
minimum six-millimeter thick polyethylene vapor retarder directly beneath the slab-on-grade;
however, standard best practice is to use a 10-millimeter or 15-millimeter thick vapor retarder
Page 2-2
Additional Information
product (Cornerstone 2015). This barrier prevents water vapor transmission through the concrete
floor from moist / wet soils beneath the slab on grade, but it is not a water proofing system. As
such, the term vapor or moisture retarder is preferred over vapor or moisture barrier.
As a standard construction practice, the proposed vapor / moisture retarder is independent of the
DTSC review of the project. Accordingly, the MUSD has revised Draft EIR Chapter 9 (Hazards
and Hazardous Materials) to indicate a vapor barrier is not part of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as
shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
2.1.3
City of Milpitas District Project / Houret Drive Fire Access
The Draft EIR includes brief discussions of Lyon Communities 26.7-acre, mixed-use The
District at Milpitas project, which the City Planning Commission recommended for City
Council approval on October 28, 2015, in sections 2.1.1 (including Figure 2-2) and 11.1.2 (City
of Milpitas 2015). As stated on pages 11-2 and 11-3 of the Draft EIR, the three master planned
areas located closest to the proposed School and City Park Properties would redevelop the
existing light industrial and office land uses on Houret Drive and Houret Court to approximately
250 dwelling units three to four-stories high; however, the Draft EIR did not clearly indicate the
fact that this project would also result in the development of the westernmost portion of Houret
Drive, including the Houret Drive cul-de-sac that juts into the City Property (and which would be
vacated to the MUSD and become part of the School Property).
Draft EIR section 2.3.2.1 states that the MUSD would provide secondary emergency fire access
to the School Property via Houret Drive; however, Lyon Communities development of the
westernmost part of Houret Drive would prevent this secondary access. The MUSD has
continued to coordinate with the Milpitas Fire Department throughout the development of the
project and has provided a fire apparatus road around the perimeter of the proposed school
buildings, as well as limited access into the schools interior courtyard. Furthermore, the MUSD
has provided a loop for fire water service that can be served from two directions. As stated in the
Draft EIR (pgs. 2-15 and 9-15), the MUSD would continue to coordinate with the Milpitas Fire
Department on fire access and safety issues.
Although the Lyons Communities project would likely prohibit fire access to the School
Property via Houret Drive, it would promote bike and pedestrian access to the School Site and
City Park, both along Houret Drive and through the dedication / provision of land to
accommodate the alignment of two pedestrian bridges over Penitencia Creek, and a landing area
for a pedestrian bridge over Montague Expressway. These pedestrian accommodations would,
eventually, increase pedestrian access to the joint school and park site, particularly from
neighborhoods on the south and east side of Montague Expressway.
2.2
REMOVAL ACTION WORKPLAN
The Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion of site contamination and the DTSC oversight
process in Chapters 1 (Introduction), 2 (Project Description), and 9 (Hazards and Hazardous
Materials). Since publication of the Draft EIR, the DTSC has requested the term / acronym
Remedial Action Workplan / RAW be replaced with Removal Action Workplan / RAW.
The DTSC has also submitted comments on the Draft RAW included as Appendix H4 to the
Draft EIR (DTSC 2015). The DTSC comments on the Draft RAW revise and clarify the nature
of the site contamination, remedial actions, and other oversight components but do not
substantially change the remedial activities described in the Draft EIR. The MUSD anticipates

Page 2-3
the DTSC-approved Draft RAW would be available for public review in late January or February
2016.
2.3
RECYCLED WATER FOR FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
The use of recycled water for construction purposes is an approved use by the State Water
Resources Control Board's Division of Drinking Water. Recycled water for this purpose may be
available through the City of Milpitas because a recycled water line is present in the McCandless
Drive right-of-way (Draft EIR pg. 13-1). Mitigation Measure AIR-1 has been revised to require
the use of recycled water for the purpose of fugitive dust control during construction if feasible
and approved for use by the City and the DTSC.
2.4
PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT
The Draft EIR did not include a discussion of grade-separated, advanced transit systems such as
a personal rapid transit (PRT) system. Information on these systems is being added to the EIR as
a result of public comments recommending the MUSD consider development, financial
contribution, and/or support for use of such a system in the City of Milpitas. This information
does not change any of the impact analyses, mitigation measures, or conclusions of the Draft
EIR. As described below and in section 3.6 of this Final EIR, because PRT systems are not
effective or feasible mitigation measures for the project, the MUSD is declining to implement
them.
Grade-separated, advanced transit systems are, in general, public transportation systems with
fully automated operating capabilities. The systems consist of an automated vehicle operating on
a network of rails or other guideways that are usually elevated. A PRT system includes small,
automated vehicles, sometimes referred to as a podcar, that operate on a network of rails or
guideways. PRT vehicles can each accommodate approximately three to six people, and can be
schedule-based (i.e., running at set times) or on-demand (i.e., running when needed or requested
by a transit user). Elevated rails and guideways are supported by two-foot diameter columns
spaced 50 to 100 feet apart, and PRT stations are off-line, meaning the vehicles pull to the side
to load and unload passengers so other vehicles may continue to their destinations unimpeded.
System infrastructure is lighter and cheaper than conventional railways, making the electricbased system substantially more energy efficient than other fossil-fueled alternative
transportation modes (e.g., carpool, bus, etc.) and light rail services (Kinetic Network 2015).
Capital and operating costs for a PRT system are estimated to range from $3 to $20 million per
elevated mile (Electric-Bikes 2015, MTI 2014); however, for equal throughput, capital and
operating costs for PRT systems are also estimated to be approximately 50 percent lower than
that of a tram or railway and 75 percent lower than that of a subway or highway (MTI 2014).
There are only five automated transit / PRT systems in operation in the world today (MTI 2014).
The University of West Virginia at Morgantown has operated the only U.S.-based PRT system
for students, faculty, staff, and the local community since the 1970s; however, the City of San
Jose is investigating the use of a system for Mineta International Airport. Other cities in the U.S.
are also investigating PRT systems in-lieu of expanding conventional rail lines. Within the City
of Milpitas, the Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association (SNA) has advocated for a PRT system
from the north end of Milpitas to the Milpitas Transit Center and future Milpitas BART Station
at the south end of town approximately 3.5 miles away (SNA 2015). SNA also advocates for an
approximately 0.5-mile pilot project that would replace the Citys proposed pedestrian
overcrossing for Montague Expressway (along the Penitencia Creek East Channel as shown in
Page 2-4
Figure 3-1 of the Citys TASP). This planned pedestrian bridge would improve connectivity to
the Great Mall and the Milpitas BART station from the north and west sides of Montague
Expressway and vice versa. The SNA pilot project would run from the southern end of the Lyon
Communities Montague development project (450 Montague Expressway) to the northern end
of the joint school and park site. The SNA estimates this pilot project would cost approximately
$8 million as opposed to $9 million for a concrete pedestrian overcrossing in a similar location
(SNA 2015). This pilot project would then be connected to a larger PRT loop serving Milpitas.
To construct a pilot PRT line that bridges the neighborhoods located north and east and south
and west of Montague Expressway, the Santa Clara Valley Water District would need to provide
an easement for the PRT system (which would run above the Penitencia Creek East Channel),
which would most likely be on the northern side of the Penitencia Creek East Channel, and a
potential easement under or over the PG&E 115 kilovolt transmission line located on the south
and east side of Montague Expressway. While such a pilot project would increase pedestrian
access across Montague Expressway, the eastern terminus of the project (in the Montague
development) is outside the proposed attendance area for the McCandless Drive Elementary
School. There is no timetable for construction of the PRT systems for which the SNA advocates.
A PRT system is not considered feasible mitigation because development of the system, even a
pilot project, would require transactions and approvals that are outside of the MUSDs authority
to implement and authorize (e.g., an easement can only be issued for the pilot project by the
Santa Clara Valley Water District). In addition, the MUSD does not anticipate a PRT system to
be effective at reducing vehicle trips. As described in the Draft EIR (pg. 4-15), the proposed
school project is not anticipated to substantially increase transit ridership (just two staff). Second,
the eastern terminus of the SNAs proposed pilot project is located outside the proposed schools
attendance area, making it unlikely to be used by parents and students attending the McCandless
Drive School. Thus, financial contributions to the development of a feasible PRT system, which
does not presently exist, are not considered to be effective mitigation for project vehicle trips.
2.5
CHANGES TO MITIGATION MEASURES
The MUSD has clarified and amplified several mitigation measures in the Draft EIR, including:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 has been revised to include a provision related to recycled
water use for fugitive dust control purposes, if feasible.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2A has been revised to include a Travel Demand Management
Program for school employees and a provision to register and provide school parents
information about the SchoolPool RideMatch Service offered through the 511.org
website.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been revised to be consistent with the recommendations
of the DTSC, a CEQA Responsible Agency for the project.
These changes to mitigation measures are shown in Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions.
2.6
REFERENCES
City of Milpitas 2015. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) TASP FEIR Addendum for
The District at Milpitas Project, Milpitas, California. October 22, 2015. Milpitas, CA.

Page 2-5
Cornerstone 2015. Re: McCandless Drive: Admin Review Final EIR. Email communication
from Scott Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E., Cornerstone Earth Group, to Keith Craw, Blach
Construction. January 9, 2016.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSCT) 2015. Review of the Draft Remedial Action
Workplan, Milpitas Unified School District, McCandless Proposed K-6 School Site
(A.K.A. New TK-6 School Site), McCandless Drive, Milpitas, Santa Clara County
(Project Code 204264). December 10, 2015. Sacramento, CA
Electric-Bikes 2015. Personal Rapid Transit. Electric-Bikes, Personal Rapid Transit. January 5,
2015. Web. n.d. <http://www.electric-bikes.com/prt/index.html>
Kinetic Network 2010. PRT. Kinetic Network, PRG. January 5, 2015. Web. n.d.
<http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html>
Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) 2014. Automated Transit Networks (ATN): A Review of
the State of the Industry and Prospects for the Future. MTI Report 12-31. September
2014. San Jose, CA. Available online: <http://www.advancedtransit.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/1227-automated-transit-networks.pdf>
Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association (SNA) 2015. Advanced Transit Feeder from Sunnyhills to
BART: Pilot Project. Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association, Projects, Automated Transit
to BART. January 5, 2015. Web. n.d. <http://sunnyhillsneighborhood.org/crossing.html>

Page 2-6

Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3
DRAFT EIR ERRATA AND REVISIONS
This chapter provides amended text and graphics for the McCandless Drive Elementary School
Project EIR. Text revisions are organized by Draft EIR chapter. Additions to the Draft EIR text
are shown with underlining and text removed from the Draft EIR is shown with strikethrough.
3.1
EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS
On page ix, the title of Appendix H4 is revised as follows:
Appendix H4: October 2015 Draft RemedialRemoval Action Workplan
On page xii, in the List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols, the acronym RAW is revised
as follows:
RAW
3.2
RemedialRemoval Action Workplan
EIR SUMMARY
On page S-2, in section S.2.2, the next to last full sentence is revised as follows:
Under the VCA, the MUSD has prepared a RemedialRemoval Action Workplan (RAW)
for review and approval by the DTSC that describes the remedial actions the MUSD will
undertake to ensure project construction, operation, and maintenance does not
substantially threaten or pose a risk to human health and safety or the environment.
On page S-3, in section S.2.2, the third bullet is revised as follows:
NOA in sub-surface native soils would be controlled through the development of

institutional and/or engineering controls that would reduce or eliminate potential
exposure to NOA. Engineering controls would include, such as capping the site with
clean fill material (including remediated PCB soils) and institutional controls will
include administrative measures and the implementation of a long-term operation and
maintenance plan., development of an operation and maintenance plan, development
of a soils management plan, and/or land use covenants. A land use covenants and/or
deed notices/restrictions provide information or notifications that residual
contamination may remain on a property and identifies the engineering controls that
restrict access and exposure to contamination land use covenant is recorded in the
county in which the land is located, and must continue in perpetuity unless modified
or terminated in accordance with applicable law.
On page S-8, in Table S-1, the first bullet under Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is revised as follows:
Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) two times per day during construction and adequately wet
demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions. If feasible and approved for
use by the City of Milpitas and the DTSC, recycled water obtained from the City
shall be used for dust control purposes.
On page S-13, in Table S-1, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Reduce Risks to Human Health and the Environment
from the Release or Potential Release of Site Contamination

Page 3-2
Draft EIR Errata and Revisions
To reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the release or potential
release of site contamination (arsenic, naturally occurring asbestos, and PCBs in soil),
the MUSD shall obtain DTSC approval and implement a Final RemedialRemoval
Action Workplan (RAW) for the proposed McCandless Drive elementary school site
and implement the plan prior to the start of any site remediation or construction work.
In accordance with the RAW, contaminated soil will be addressed as follows:
Soil containing arsenic will be excavated, transported, and disposed of at an

appropriate off-site landfill.
PCB-containing soils will be treated using bioremediation consisting of a

proprietary gene-expression product (Factor ) and soil amendments that restore
indigenous bacteria populations.
NOA in soil will be addressed by implementation of engineering controls and

institutional controls to reduce potential exposure. Engineering controls will
include a capping system consisting of clean fill material, asphalt concrete paving,
building foundations, and/or landscaping materials. Institutional controls would
include administrative measures and the implementation of long-term operation and
maintenance of the capping system.
On page S-14, in Table S-1, the second bullet under Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is revised as
follows:
The MUSD shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan that reduces /and or prevents
erosion of soil particles and subsequent off-site migration / siltation to the
maximum extent feasible. The Erosion Control Plan may be prepared as a
separate document or as part of the SWPPP described above or the
RemedialRemoval Action Workplan or other DTSC-approved plan required by
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
On page S-16, in Table S-1, Mitigation Measure LUP-1 is renamed LAN-1 as follows:
Mitigation Measure LUPLAN-1: Provide for Community Use of the School Site.
On pages S-18 and S-19, in Table S-1, Mitigation Measure TRA-2C is revised as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRA-2A: Reduce School-Related Vehicle Trips
The MUSD shall reduce school-related vehicle trips by encouraging and promoting
students and staff to walk or bicycle to school. This shall be accomplished by:
Providing one bicycle parking space per 30 faculty / staff and one bicycle parking
space per 12 students (68 bicycles based on the Draft EIR description of the
project). Bicycle parking shall be in a secure area (e.g., fenced and locked),
approximately 600 square feet in size (if feasible), and shall include racks,
lockers, and other appropriate facilities (as feasible considering location and space
availability);
Holding promotions and activities to incentivize alternative modes of
transportation (e.g., prizes and certificates for students who participate in walk /
bike-to-school programs, competitions to see which grade level avoids the most
vehicle trips);
Organized school-wide walk and bike-to-school day, week, etc.

3.3
Page 3-3
Registering the McCandless Drive school with 511.orgs SchoolPool RideMatch

Service (https://www.schoolpool.511.org/), providing information to parents
about the program, and encouraging parents to register with the program for
carpool and/or other trip sharing opportunities.
Implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program for McCandless

Drive Elementary School employees. As part of the program, the school shall
designate a central TDM Coordinator to oversee the TDM Program and identify
carpool or other trip reduction opportunities, such as, but not limited to, reduced
fare transit passes and preferential parking for carpool vehicles. As part of the
Program, the TDM Coordinator shall survey school employees once per year to
ascertain the most current transportation mode split for school employees and the
effectiveness of the TDM Program.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 2
On page 2-8, in section 2.2.2.1, the following text is being added to the end of the last paragraph:
As described in Chapter 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the MUSD would
implement dust control measures during soil excavation activities, including
watering, covering stockpiles of soil, minimizing drop heights of soil during loading
and unloading, and dust monitoring. In addition, as described in Mitigation Measure
AIR-1, haul trucks transporting soil would be covered.
On page 2-10, section 2.2.2.3 is revised as follows:
NOA is present in sub-surface native soils located at the proposed School Site. The
MUSD would implement engineering controls and institutional controls that would
reduce or eliminate potential exposure to NOA at the site. Engineering controls would
include a capping system consisting of clean fill material (which could include
remediated PCB soils), asphalt concrete paving, building foundations, and/or
landscaping materials. Institutional controls will include administrative measures and
the implementation of a long-term operation and maintenance plan for the sitewould
include land use covenants and/or deed notices or restrictions that provide
information or notifications that residual contamination may remain on a property.
On page 2-14, in section 2.3.2, the last full paragraph is revised as follows:
A decorative fence and bioswale along the school sites McCandless Drive boundary
would encourage pedestrian access to the school through the main entrance at De
Long Lane; pedestrians and bicyclists coming from the north would be able to enter
the site via a sidewalk on the north side of the main exit, avoiding the need to cross
the main exit driveway and on-site parking and loading / unloading lanes. Once onsite, crosswalks at the northern and southern end of the loading and unloading area
would provide a safe point to cross the loading and unloading area.
On page 2-15, section 2.3.2.1 is revised as follows:
The conceptual site plan includes a perimeter fire access road around the proposed
school buildings. The MUSD would also provide emergency fire access to the site via
Houret Drivelimited access to the proposed schools interior courtyard via a driveable
surface between the proposed multi-purpose building and northern eastern learning
Page 3-4
community. The MUSD would coordinate with the Milpitas Fire Department on fire
access issues.
On pages 2-19 and 2-20, Figure numbers 2-8 and 2-9 are corrected to 2-7 as follows:
Figure 2-78 McCandless Drive Elementary School - Conceptual Perspective
Views
Figure 2-79 McCandless Drive Elementary School - Conceptual Perspective
Views
On page 2-21, in section 2.6, the first sentence in the section is revised as follows:
The MUSD is the proponent and CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the DTSC is a
CEQA Responsible Agency for the project and the City of Milpitas, the DTSC may
be a CEQA rResponsible aAgencyies for the project.
On page 2-21, in Table 2-3, the text describing the DTSC review, authorization, or approval is
revised as follows:
Review and approval of the project EIR, Removal Action Workplan (RAW), and
other DTSC-required plans such as an Operation and Maintenance Plan, etc.
Remedial Action Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and / or Land Use Covenants.
On page 2-22, in section 2.7, the last reference is revised as follows:
______2015c. Draft RemedialRemoval Action Workplan, New TK-6 School Site,
McCandless Drive, Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California (Site Code
204264). Prepared by Padre Associates, Inc. for the Milpitas Unified School
District. October 2015.
3.4
TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4
On page 4-17, Mitigation Measure TRA-2A is revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure TRA-2A: Reduce School-Related Vehicle Trips
The MUSD shall reduce school-related vehicle trips by encouraging and promoting
students and staff to walk or bicycle to school. This shall be accomplished by:
Providing one bicycle parking space per 30 faculty / staff and one bicycle parking
space per 12 students (68 bicycles based on the Draft EIR description of the
project). Bicycle parking shall be in a secure area (e.g., fenced and locked),
approximately 600 square feet in size (if feasible), and shall include racks,
lockers, and other appropriate facilities (as feasible considering location and space
availability);
Holding promotions and activities to incentivize alternative modes of
transportation (e.g., prizes and certificates for students who participate in walk /
bike-to-school programs, competitions to see which grade level avoids the most
vehicle trips);
Organized school-wide walk and bike-to-school day, week, etc.
Registering the McCandless Drive school with 511.orgs SchoolPool RideMatch

Service (https://www.schoolpool.511.org/), providing information to parents
about the program, and encouraging parents to register with the program for
carpool and/or other trip sharing opportunities.
3.5
Page 3-5
Implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program for McCandless

Drive Elementary School employees. As part of the program, the school shall
designate a central TDM Coordinator to oversee the TDM Program and identify
carpool or other trip reduction opportunities, such as, but not limited to, reduced
fare transit passes and preferential parking for carpool vehicles. As part of the
Program, the TDM Coordinator shall survey school employees once per year to
ascertain the most current transportation mode split for school employees and the
effectiveness of the TDM Program.
AESTHETICS CHAPTER 5
On pages 5-5 to 5-8, in Figure 5-2, the captions for Photos 6 13 are renamed Photos 1 8 (i.e.,
Photo 6 becomes Photo 1, Photo 7 becomes Photo 2, etc.)
3.6
AIR QUALITY CHAPTER 6
On page 6-13, the first bullet under Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is revised as follows:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Reduce Fugitive Dust Emissions
To reduce potential fugitive dust that may be generated by project remediation and
construction activities, the MUSD shall implement the following BAAQMD basic
construction measures:
3.7
Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) two times per day during construction and adequately wet
demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions. If feasible and approved for
use by the City of Milpitas and the DTSC, recycled water obtained from the City
shall be used for dust control purposes.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CHAPTER 9
On page 9-1, the sixth bullet is revised as follows:

Draft RemedialRemoval Action Workplan, New TK-6 School Site, McCandless
Drive, Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California (Site Code 204264), Padre
Associated 2015c, see Appendix H4)
On page 9-2, in section 9.1.2, the first sentence in the section is revised as follows:
In accordance with state requirements, the MUSD has prepared a Preliminary
Environmental Assessment (PEA) to determine whether a release or potential release
of hazardous substances that could pose a threat to human health (via ingestion, skin
contact, or inhalation) or the environment could occur as a result project construction
and long-term operation (Padre Associates 2015a).
On page 9-3, in section 9.1.2, the next to last sentence in the section is revised as follows:
In general, the PEA determined that the presence of arsenic, NOA, and PCBs in site
soils poses a risk to human health and the environment and requires the MUSD to
prepare a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for DTSC review and approval.
On page 9-6, in section 9.1.2.1, the last four sentences in the discussion of PEA Soil Sampling
Results for Naturally Occurring Asbestos are revised as follows:
Page 3-6
NOA concentrations at the proposed School Site ranged from less than 0.0005
percent weight to 0.053 percent. Four samples exceeded the DTSCs screening level
of 0.01 percent weight. and two decision units (DUs) were identified: DU-1 (fill
material) and DU-2 (clay). The fill material is primarily sandy clay with gravel. The
clay is medium stiff to very stiff high plasticity clay. Given this, the Final PEA
concludes that for DU-1, no further action is required; however, further action is
required for DU-2 (clay). Three of the four samples that exceeded screening criteria
were collected at approximate depths of 3.5-fee to 4.0-feet. At this depth the soil is
characterized as Fat Clay and requires remedial action Therefore, the Final PEA
concludes the presence of NOA in site soils would require remedial action. Three of
these samples that exceed screening were located in the southern portion of the
proposed School Site and one was located in the northwest corner (see Figure 2-4 and
Appendix H2, Plate 6-3). These exceedances were detected in soils at depths from 1
to 4.5 feet below ground surface.
On page 9-7, in section 9.1.2.4, the third bullet under the discussion of Soil Risks and
Remediation is revised as follows:
NOA in sub-surface native soils would be controlled through the development of

institutional and/or engineering controls that would reduce or eliminate potential
exposure to NOA. Engineering controls would include, such as capping the site
with clean fill material (including remediated PCB soils) and institutional controls
will include administrative measures and the implementation of a long-term
operation and maintenance plan for the site, development of an operation and
maintenance plan, development of a soils management plan, and/or land use
covenants. A land use covenant and/or deed notices/restrictions provide
information or notifications that residual contamination may remain on a property
and identifies the engineering controls that restrict access and exposure to
contamination land use covenant is recorded in the county in which the land is
located, and must continue in perpetuity unless modified or terminated in
accordance with applicable law.
On page 9-13, in section 9.2.3.1, the next to last bullet on the page is deleted as follows:
Public participation activities that ensure the affected and interested public and
community are involved in DTSCs decision-making process
A potential land use covenant to ensure full protection of human health and the
environment
A Site Health and Safety Plan, in accordance with California Code of

Regulations, Title 8, section 5192, which will cover all measures, including
contingency plans, that will be taken during field activities to protect workers and
the general public from exposure to hazardous waste, substances, or materials.
On page 9-15, in section 9.3, the last sentence in the first paragraph is revised as follows:
The proposed school project may require long-term operations and maintenance
agreements land use covenants which wcould result in site listing on the Cortese List;
however, if listed, the VCA process would ensure the project does not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment during operations and
maintenance activities.
Page 3-7
On page 9-17, in section 9.3.2, the first bullet is revised as follows:
NOA would require remediation throughout the entire School and City Park
Properties via engineering and institutional controls. Engineering controls would
consist of a capping system comprised a minimum of 1-foot thick clean fill
material, building foundations, asphalt-concrete parking areas and sidewalks, and
landscaping areas. Institutional controls would include development and
implementation of an Operations and Maintenance Plan, including a Soil
Management Plan when intrusive soil work is conducted (e.g., excavation,
grading, trenching, drilling, etc.), and preparation of a Land Use Covenant
between the MUSD and the DTSCthe MUSD will enter into a long-term
Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the DTSC.
On page 9-18, in section 9.3.2, the first paragraph is revised as follows:

Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 ensures the MUSD would obtain DTSC
approval of a Final RAW prior to the start of remedial activities. Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 also ensures the MUSDs would incorporate a vapor/moisture barrier into the
final project design to further reduce and control risks from soil gases.
On page 9-18, in section 9.3.2, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is revised as follows:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Reduce Risks to Human Health and the
Environment from the Release or Potential Release of Site Contamination
To reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the release or potential
release of site contamination (arsenic, naturally occurring asbestos, and PCBs in soil),
the MUSD shall obtain DTSC approval and implement a Final RemedialRemoval
Action Workplan (RAW) for the proposed McCandless Drive elementary school site
and implement the plan prior to the start of any site remediation or construction work.
In accordance with the RAW, contaminated soil will be addressed as follows:


proprietary gene-expression product (Factor ) and soil amendments that restore
indigenous bacteria populations.

include a capping system consisting of clean fill material, asphalt concrete paving,
building foundations, and/or landscaping materials. Institutional controls would
include administrative measures and the implementation of long-term operation
and maintenance of the capping system.
On page 9-18, in section 9.3.2, the paragraph immediate following Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is
revised as follows:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the MUSD to obtain DTSC approval of a Final
RAW intended to reduce risks to human health and safety and the environment from
the release or potential release of site contaminants and incorporate a vapor /moisture
barrier into the final project design that prevents intrusion of soil gases into interior
Page 3-8
building spaces. Thus, with thesethis measures, Impact HAZ-1 would be rendered a
less than significant impact.
On page 9-22, in section 9.4, the last reference for Padre Associates, Inc. is revised as follows:
______2015c. Draft RemedialRemoval Action Workplan, New TK-6 School Site,
McCandless Drive, Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California (Site Code
204264). Prepared by Padre Associates, Inc. for the Milpitas Unified School
District. October 2015.
3.8
HYDROLOGY CHAPTER 10
On page 10-8, the second bullet under Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is revised as follows:
3.9
The MUSD shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan that reduces /and or prevents
erosion of soil particles and subsequent off-site migration / siltation to the
maximum extent feasible. The Erosion Control Plan may be prepared as a
separate document or as part of the SWPPP described above or the
RemedialRemoval Action Workplan or other DTSC-approved plan required by
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
LAND USE AND PLANNING CHAPTER 11
On page 11-2, Mitigation Measure LUP-1 is renamed LAN-1 as follows:

Mitigation Measure LUPLAN-1: Provide for Community Use of the School Site
3.10 ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 15

On page 15-11, in section 15.6, the last reference is revised as follows:
Oxbridge Development 2012. Matrix Evaluation of Possible New Elementary School
Sites. December 12, 20022012.

Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4
RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS
This chapter contains the written comments received on or related to the Draft EIR during the
public review period from November 13 through December 28, 2015. This chapter also provides
a written response by the MUSD, as the CEQA Lead Agency for the project, to each comment
raising a significant environmental issue submitted on the Draft EIR.
The MUSD received five comment letters during the Draft EIR review period, including two
comment letters from state agencies (DTSC and Caltrans), two comment letters from local
agencies (the City of Milpitas and the VTA), and one letter from the general public. No oral
comments regarding the Draft EIR were provided to the MUSD at its November 24, 2015 Board
of meeting. Each written commenter was assigned a letter (i.e., A, B, etc.) and each specific
comment was assigned an alpha-numeric identification number (i.e., A1, B4), as
summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Summary of Agency and Public Comments Received on the Draft EIR
ID
Commenter (Agency)
Comments
Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR

A
Mellan Songco, MPA (Project Manager, DTSC)
A1 A13
Sarah Fleming, AICP (Senior Planner, City of Milpitas)
B1 B3
Ray Molseed (Senior Environmental Planner, VTA)
C1 C6
Patricia Maurice (District Branch Chief, Caltrans)
D1 D5
Rob Means
E1 E11

Page 4-2
Responses to Draft EIR Comments

Comment Letter "A"

Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Barbara A. Lee, Director

8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Governor
December 24, 2015

Mr. Cary Matsuoka
Superintendent
Milpitas, California 95035
REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MILPITAS
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MCCANDLESS DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PROJECT, MILPITAS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY (SCH #2015011051)
Dear Mr. Matsuoka:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
McCandless Drive Elementary School Project (Project) proposed by the Milpitas Unified
School District (MUSD). The due date to submit comments is December 28, 2015.
The MUSD is proposing to acquire land in the vicinity of McCandless Drive in the City of
Milpitas, Santa Clara County, to develop and operate a new TK-6 elementary school.
The new school will accommodate 800 students and 50 faculty and staff and is planned
to be operational in time for the 2018/2019 school year. The Project would involve
property acquisition, site remediation, school construction and operation, McCandless
Drive improvements, on- and off-site utility improvements, and joint-use of property for
school-related and City park purposes.
The site remediation activities, in the form of the Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for
the McCandless Proposed K-6 School Site, will include the following:
Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 45 cubic yards (cy) of arseniccontaminated soil to an appropriately permitted off-site disposal facility;
In-situ bioremediation of approximately 16,400 cy of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) contaminated soil; and
Capping and long-term operations and maintenance of soil contaminated with
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA).
Mr. Cary Matsuoka

December 24, 2015
Page 2
A1
A2
A3
A4
DTSC submits the following comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the
RAW activities that are described in various sections of the EIR and detailed in the
RAW that are the subject of DTSC's approval component of the Project.
1. Section S.2.2 Site Remediation, Page S-2. Please change the word "Remedial"
to "Removal" Action Workplan in this section and in other section(s) as
applicable.
2. Section S.2.2 Site Remediation, Third Bullet, Page S-3. The NOA is found in the
native soil. Please change "surface soils" to "sub-surface native soils" in this
section and in other section(s) as applicable.
3. Section S.2.2 Site Remediation, Third Bullet, Page S-3. Please remove the
reference to land use covenants (LUC) and deed notices and/or restrictions
within the EIR text, tables, etc. Instead indicate that the engineering control will
include capping the site and that the institutional controls will include
administrative measures and the implementation of long-term operation and
maintenance of the capping system.
4. Table S-1, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact HAZ-1, MM HAZ-1, Page
S-13.
Current text: "To reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the
release or potential release of site contamination, the MUSD shall obtain DTSC
approval and implement a Final Remedial Action Workplan for the proposed
McCandless Drive elementary school site and implement the plan prior to the
start of any site remediation or construction work."
A5
Recommended revision: "To reduce the risks to human health and the
environment from the release or potential release of site contamination (arsenic,
naturally occurring asbestos and PCBs in soil), the MUSD shall obtain DTSC
approval and implement a Final Removal Action Workplan (RAW) for the
proposed McCandless Drive Elementary School site and implement the plan
prior to the start of any site remediation or construction work. In accordance with
the RAW, contaminated soil will be addressed as follows:
proprietary gene-expression factor product (Factor) and soil amendments
that restore indigenous bacteria populations.
Mr. Cary Matsuoka

December 24, 2015
Page 3
A5
(Con't)
include a capping system consisting of clean fill material, asphalt concrete

paving, building foundations, and/or landscaping materials. Institutional
controls would include administrative measures and the implementation of
long-term operation and maintenance of the capping system."
A6
5. Section 2.2.2.1 Arsenic Remediation, Page 2-8. Please indicate and define dust
control measures to be implemented during the soil excavation activities.
A7
6. Section 2.6, Permits and Approvals Required by the Project, First Paragraph,
Page 2-21. Please revise to indicate that DTSC is a responsible agency for this
Project.
A8
7. Section 9.1.2.1 PEA Soil Sampling Results, Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA),
Page 9-6. DTSC recommends revising the last two sentences to indicate that two
decision units (DUs) were identified during the PEA and follow-up investigation:
DU-1 (fill material) and DU-2 (clay). The fill material is described as primarily
sandy clay with gravel. The clay is described as medium stiff to very stiff high
plasticity clay. Based on the information, the PEA concluded that for DU-1 (fill
material) no further action is required. However, further action is required for DU2 (clay). Three of the four soil samples that exceed screening were collected at
approximate depths of 3.5-feet to 4.0-feet. At this depth the soil is characterized
as Fat Clay (CH), which requires remediation. Please remove the reference that
NOA in surface soil needs to be remediated.
A9
A10
8. Section 9.1.2.4 Human Health Risks and Recommended Site Remediation, Soil
Risks and Remediation, Third Bullet, Page 9-7. Please change "surface" to "subsurface" in the first sentence. Remove the reference to land use covenant and
delete the last sentence.
9. Section 9.3.2 Potential Impacts from Hazards and Hazardous Materials, NOA
bullet, Page 9-17. Remove the "... preparation of a Land Use Covenant between
the MUSD and the DTSC." and replace it with " ... the MUSD will enter into a longterm Operation and Maintenance Agreement with DTSC."
10. Section 9.3.2, Potential Impacts from Hazards and Hazardous Materials, First
Paragraph, Page 9-18.
A11
Current Text: "Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 also ensures the MUSDs would
incorporate a vapor/moisture barrier into the final project design to further reduce
and control risks from soil gases."
Mr. Cary Matsuoka

December 24, 2015
Page 4
A11
(Con't)
A12
Recommendation: The RAW does not include installation of a vapor/moisture

barrier. Please remove this text so that it is clear that this activity is not part of
the RAW and will not be performed under DTSC's oversight.
11. Section 9.3.2, Potential Impacts from Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, First Paragraph, Page 9-18 . Please revise to be
consistent with the text used for MM HAZ-1 in Table S-1 .
12. Section 9.3 .2, Potential Impacts from Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Second Paragraph, Page 9-18 .
Current text: "Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the MUSD to obtain DTSC
approval of a Final RAW intended to reduce risks to human health and
environment from the release or potential release of site contaminants and
incorporate a vapor /moisture barrier into the final project design that prevents
intrusion of soil gases into interior building spaces. Thus, with these measures,
Impact HAZ-1 would be rendered a less than significant impact."
A13
Recommended Revision: "Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the MUSD to

obtain DTSC approval and implement a Final RAW intended to reduce risks to
human health and environment from the release or potential release of site
contaminants. Thus, with these measures, Impact HAZ-1 would be rendered a
less than significant impact."
Text stating that MUSD will incorporate a vapor /moisture barrier into the final
project design that prevents intrusion of soil gases into interior building spaces
should be moved so that it is clear that it is not part of the RAW or under DTSC's
oversight.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (916)
255-6527 or via email mellan.songco@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Melian Songco, MPA

DTSC Project Manager
Northern California Schools
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: See next page
Mr. Cary Matsuoka

December 24, 2015
Page 5
cc:
(via email)
State Clearinghouse (State.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov)
Office of Planning and Research
Michael O'Neill (MONeill@cde.ca.gov)
Department of Education - Sacramento, CA
Cheryl Mahoney (Cheryl.Mahoney@dtsc.ca.gov)
DTSC Office of Environmental Planning & Analysis
Nancy Ritter (Nancy.Ritter@dtsc.ca.gov)
DTSC CEQA Tracking Center - Sacramento, CA
Jose Salcedo (Jose.Salcedo@dtsc.ca.gov)
DTSC Schools Unit - Sacramento, CA
. Alan Klein (AKlein@padreinc.com)
Padre Associates, Inc.
Chris Dugan (Dugan@traenviro.com)
MIG/TRA Environmental Sciences
Page 4-8

4.1
Page 4-9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM DTSC
The MUSD received 13 comments from the DTSC that were generally related to the DTSCs
role in approving the project and the Draft EIRs description and analyses of site hazards and
potential hazardous materials. These comments are summarized and responded to below.
Comment A1: The DTSC states its role as a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the Removal
Action Workplan (RAW) activities that are subject to DTSC approval and described in various
sections of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment A1: Comment noted. The MUSD thanks the DTSC for its
comments. Section 1.3.1 of the Draft EIR explains that the information contained in the
Draft EIR will be used for all project-related discretionary approvals, including approvals
by responsible agencies such as the DTSC. In addition, Table 2-3 on page 2-21 of the
Draft EIR lists the potential permits and approvals that the McCandless Drive Elementary
School Project could be subject to, including DTSC review and approval of a RAW.
Comment A2: The DTSC requests the MUSD change the word/phrase Remedial Action
Workplan, or RAW, to Removal Action Workplan in section S.2.2 and in other sections of the
EIR, as applicable.
Response to Comment A2: The MUSD has made this change to the Draft EIR language
where necessary, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Comment A3: The DTSC requests the MUSD clarify that naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) at
the site is found in sub-surface native soils, not surface soils, as stated on page S-3 and in
other sections of the EIR.
Response to Comment A3: The MUSD has made this change to the Draft EIR language
where necessary, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Comment A4: The DTSC requests the MUSD remove references to land use covenants and
deed notices and/or restrictions within EIR text, tables, etc. and instead indicate that the
engineering control will include capping the site and institutional control will include
administrative measures and the implementation of long-term operation and maintenance of the
capping system.
Response to Comment A4: The MUSD has clarified the EIRs discussion of engineering
and institutional controls where necessary, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. These
clarifications primarily occurred in the Draft EIR Summary, Project Description (Chapter
2), and Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Chapter 9) chapters.
Comment A5: The DTSC recommends revisions to Draft EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 that,
in general, clarify how the MUSD would address contaminated soils at the proposed School
Property and City Park Property.
Response to Comment A5: The MUSD has incorporated the DTSCs recommended
revisions into Draft EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final
EIR. The MUSD notes the discussion under Impact HAZ-1 on pages 9-16 to 9-17 of the
Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the MUSDs Draft RAW, including
recommended remedial actions for arsenic, NOA, and PCBs that is similar to and
consistent with the DTSCs recommended changes.

Page 4-10
Comment A6: The DTSC requests the MUSD define dust control measures that would be
implemented during soil excavation activities associated with arsenic remediation.
Response to Comment A6: The MUSD notes the Draft EIR includes information on the
types of dust control measures that would be implemented during site remediation and
construction. In the Air Quality analyses (Draft EIR Chapter 6), Mitigation Measure AIR1 requires the MUSD to reduce fugitive dust that may be generated by project
remediation and construction activities by implementing the Bay Area Air Quality
Management Districts basic construction measures, including site watering, covering
haul trucks, and the use of wet power vacuum street sweepers. In the Hazards and
Hazardous Materials analyses (Chapter 9), the discussion under Impact HAZ-1 (pg. 9-17)
describes that the Draft RAW prepared for the project outlines procedures and risk
reduction measures to prevent and monitor the release or potential release or arsenic,
NOA, and PCBS from the site, including the following dust and erosion control
measures:
Misting or spraying water during soil excavation and loading of soil into vehicles
A 5 miles-per-hour vehicle speed limit on unpaved portions of the site
Covering stockpiles
Minimizing drop heights of soil during loading/unloading activities
Rapid clean-up of soil dropped or tracked onto paved roadways
Temporary gravel surfacing at site ingress/egress points
Suspension of excavation and off-haul activities when average hourly wind

speeds greater than 25 miles-per-hour cause concentrations of particulate matter
to exceed national ambient air quality standards (150 micrograms per cubic
meter).
Meteorological and air quality monitoring to determine if excessive dust is

migrating off-site (one upwind monitor, one downwind monitor, and two fence
line monitors
As requested by the DTSC, the MUSD has added a description of dust control measures
that would be implemented during soil excavation to Draft EIR section 2.2.2.1 (see
Chapter 3 of this Final EIR).
Comment A7: The DTSC requests the MUSD revise section 2.6 of the Draft EIR to indicate the
DTSC is a responsible agency for the project.
Response to Comment A7: The MUSD notes the Draft EIR identifies that the DTSC
may be a CEQA responsible agency for the project in sections 1.3.1 and 2.3.6 of the
Draft EIR. The MUSD has clarified this language to indicate the DTSC is a CEQA
responsible agency for the project, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Comment A8: The DTSC requests the MUSD clarify the discussion of the Preliminary
Environmental Assessments (PEA) soil sampling and findings regarding NOA and the need for
NOA remediation at the proposed School Property and City Park Property contained in section
9.1.2.1 of the Draft EIR (pg. 9-6).

Page 4-11
Response to Comment A8: As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, the MUSD has
clarified the discussion of NOA on page 9-6 of the Draft EIR to indicate two decision
units were identified during the PEA and follow-up investigation and that only one of the
decision units was found to require remediation for NOA (decision unit 2). The MUSD
has also deleted the text indicating that NOA in surface soils needs to be remediated.
Comment A9: The DTSC requests the MUSD clarify that naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) at
the site is found in sub-surface native soils, not surface soils, as stated in the third bullet on
page 9-7 of the Draft EIR. The DTSC also request the MUSD remove the references to land use
covenants in this paragraph.
made the requested change to the text on page 9-7 of the Draft EIR.
Comment A10: The DTSC requests the MUSD replace the reference to a land use covenant on
page 9-17 of the Draft EIR with language regarding a long-term Operation and Maintenance
Agreement with DTSC.
made the requested change to the text on page 9-17 of the Draft EIR. The MUSD notes
the discussion under Impact HAZ-1 on pages 9-17 of the Draft EIR includes a description
of NOA engineering and institutional controls, including development of an Operations
and Maintenance Plan, that is similar to and consistent with the DTSCs recommended
changes.
Comment A11: The DTSC requests the MUSD revise the EIR to clarify that the installation of a
vapor / moisture barrier is not part of the RAW and will not be performed under DTSCs
oversight.
Response to Comment A11: As discussed in Chapter 2 and shown in Chapter 3 of this
Final EIR, the MUSD has made the requested change to the text on page 9-18 of the
Draft EIR.
Comment A12: The DTSC requests the MUSD revise Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to be
consistent with the DTSCs changes recommended in Comment A5.
Response to Comment A12: The MUSD has incorporated the DTSCs recommended
revisions into Draft EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final
EIR.
Comment A13: The DTSC requests the MUSD revise Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to be clear
that the installation of a vapor / moisture barrier is not part of the RAW and will not be
performed under DTSCs oversight.
Response to Comment A13: The MUSD has revised and clarified Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1, as discussed in section 2 and shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. This revision
incorporates the DTSCs recommended language, and deletes any references to the
installation of a vapor / moisture barrier under the oversight of the DTSC and /or as part
of a DTSC-approved RAW. As described in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR, the use of a
vapor / moisture barrier is a standard construction practice that would be implemented by
the MUSD independent of the RAW and DTSC oversight.

Page 4-12

Comment Letter "B"
B1
B2
B3
Sarah Fleming
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Albert Zamora
Thursday, December 03, 2015 6:06 PM
'Bill Henn'
jflatley@musd.org; Lauren Maass; Brandon Kent; Jaime Garcia; Robert Mihovich; Richard
Frawley; Emma Karlen; Albert Zamora
RE: MUSD School Site on McCandless
MUSD Plan 7-13-15.pdf; MUSD Plan 12-4-15.pdf; 10259 33 - Fire Path Exhibit-EX1 MFD Annotated Plan Review Comments 6-24-15.pdf
Good Evening Bill,
Please see comments below:
MUSD Plan dated 7/13/15 - Command Staff Review:
1. Per Item #1 of the Plan - Fire Dept. access roadway (all weather surface - preferably concrete) shall be provided
2.
to the interior "Courtyard" with a minimum 26 ft wide unobstructed width from finish grade to the sky. i.e. No
building appurtenances extending into the above access roadway - Canopies, trees, etc.
Per Item #2 of the Plan - Remove bollards in order to facilitate immediate as well as primary and /or
secondary access to the interior "Courtyard" relative to emergency medical responses.
MUSD Plan dated 12/4/15 - Received 12/2/15 Per Your Email Below:
1. Per Item #1 of the Plan - Fire Dept. access roadway (all weather surface - preferably concrete) shall be provided
to the interior "Courtyard" with a minimum 26 ft wide unobstructed width from finish grade to the sky. i.e. No
building appurtenances extending into the above access roadway - Canopies, trees, etc.
2. Per Item #2 of the Plan - Remove bollards in order to facilitate immediate as well as primary and /or
secondary access to the interior "Courtyard" relative to emergency medical responses.
Sincerely,
Albert C. Zamora, PE
Deputy Fire Chief
From: Bill Henn [mailto:BHenn@hohbach-lewin.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 12:04 PM
1
To: Albert Zamora

Cc: jflatley@musd.org; Lauren Maass; Brandon Kent; Jaime Garcia; Robert Mihovich; Richard Frawley; Emma Karlen
Subject: RE: MUSD School Site on McCandless
Albert
We made a couple adjustment to the fire lane configuration and show the fire truck entering into the courtyard area.
Did any comments come out of your meeting?
Bill
Bill Henn
Civil Engineering Department Manager
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.
Structural and Civil Engineers
260 Sheridan Ave. Suite 150
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-617-5930 ext. 263
Timely solutions based on timeless principles.
www.hohbach-lewin.com
Northern California | Southern California | Oregon |
This email is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the stated recipient. If you receive this message in error,
please contact the sender and delete this message, and any attachments. Any review, use, dissemination or copying of
this message, except by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited.
From: Albert Zamora [mailto:azamora@ci.milpitas.ca.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:13 PM
To: Bill Henn <BHenn@hohbach-lewin.com>
Cc: jflatley@musd.org; Lauren Maass <Lauren.Maass@GouldEvans.com>; Brandon Kent
<Brandon.Kent@GouldEvans.com>; Albert Zamora <azamora@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; Jaime Garcia
<jgarcia@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; Robert Mihovich <rmihovich@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; Richard Frawley
<rfrawley@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>; Emma Karlen <EKarlen@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>
Good Evening Bill,
Per our telephone discussion yesterday, we will review the "Operational Aspects" of your latest Exhibit (that you had
just sent us this afternoon) in our Command Staff Mtg, which is scheduled for next Tuesday. I will follow up with you as
soon as possible with our review and comments accordingly.
Sincerely,
2
Albert C. Zamora, PE
Deputy Fire Chief
From: Jaime Garcia

To: 'Bill Henn'; Albert Zamora
Cc: jflatley@musd.org; Lauren Maass; Brandon Kent
Bill,
Deputy Fire Chief Zamora is the contact person for this job. All communication shall run through him. (his e-mail is
included)
Thanks,
Jaime R. Garcia, Architect

Fire Protection Engineer
Milpitas Fire Prevention Division
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Office: 408.586.3365
Direct: 408.586.3369
From: Bill Henn [mailto:BHenn@hohbach-lewin.com]

To: Jaime Garcia
Cc: jflatley@musd.org; Lauren Maass; Brandon Kent
Subject: MUSD School Site on McCandless
Jaime
Attached is a plan the shows the distance between hydrants and the hose pull into the courtyard area. The School would
prefer the engine doesnt enter into the courtyard area. Is there any other way we could address your concern about
being able to get a ladder to the second floor?
Bill
Bill Henn
Civil Engineering Department Manager
Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.
Structural and Civil Engineers
260 Sheridan Ave. Suite 150
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-617-5930 ext. 263
Timely solutions based on timeless principles.
www.hohbach-lewin.com
Northern California | Southern California | Oregon |
This email is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the stated recipient. If you receive this message in error,
please contact the sender and delete this message, and any attachments. Any review, use, dissemination or copying of
this message, except by the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited.
ADD
HYDRANT
KEEP CLEAR FOR FIRE

TURN-AROUND HAMMERHEAD
REMOVE/RELOCATE
OBSTRUCTIONS ON FIRE
ACCESS PATH
PROVIDE E.V.A. AND PROVIDE FIRE

ACCESS GATES (20' MIN. CLEARANCE).
RELOCATE FENCING AS NEEDED
COMMENTS BELOW ARE BY THE

MILPITAS FIRE PREVENTION
OFFICE. JUNE 2015
Page 4-22

4.2
Page 4-23
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF MILPITAS
The MUSD received three comments from the City of Milpitas that were generally related to
transportation, circulation, and Milpitas Fire Department access. These comments are
summarized and responded to below.
Comment B1: The City states the proposed traffic signal and drop-off improvements on
McCandless Drive at DeLong Lane should be identified as MUSD mitigation since the City does
not have any fair share contribution to these improvements.
Response to Comment B1: Section 2.2.4 of the Draft EIR describes several
improvements to McCandless Drive that are intended to improve traffic flow and
circulation and promote safe and efficient vehicle queueing and student loading /
unloading. These improvements include a traffic signal, lane reconfiguration, and
sidewalk widening (Draft EIR pgs. 2-11 and 2-12). The MUSD notes the Draft EIR does
state or otherwise indicate the City has a financial responsibility for these improvements,
as the City indicates in its comment.
As explained in several sections of the Draft EIR (e.g., the Summary, Introduction,
Project Description, and Transportation chapters) the proposed McCandless Drive
roadway improvements are part of the proposed McCandless Drive Elementary School
Project, and were analyzed as such in the EIR. In other words, the Draft EIR considers
the proposed roadway improvements to be part of the physical change to the environment
that would occur with project approval. Accordingly, the Draft EIR analyzes these
improvements where appropriate (e.g., Impact TRA-3). Treatment of the proposed
roadway improvements as part of the project is consistent with the CEQA guidelines
section 1512.4, which states: The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish
between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the
project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible, or trustee agency or other
persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be
expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project.
As such, the proposed roadway improvements are not mitigation because they are part
of the project included in the Draft EIRs environmental analyses.
Comment B2: The City notes the proposed McCandless Drive Elementary School Site is located
along VTA transit route 77 and suggests that transit stop improvements on the school sites
McCandless Drive frontage should be included as traffic mitigation. The City states such
mitigation would lessen school vehicle traffic impacts and provide convenient transit services.
The City also states the MUSD should continue to coordinate with the City of Milpitas Traffic
Engineering Department.
Response to Comment B2: Section 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR describes transit service in the
vicinity of the proposed School Site, including VTA Route 77. According to the VTA,
Route 77 stops on northbound McCandless Drive at the southern end of the proposed
School Site (next to the Carls Jr.), and on southbound McCandless Drive near Lee Way,
across from the proposed School Site. Service runs approximately every 15 minutes,
beginning around 8 AM for northbound service and 7 AM for southbound service (VTA
2015).
Under CEQA, mitigation measures are generally intended to avoid, minimize, rectify,
and/or compensate for significant adverse impacts resulting from a project (CEQA
Page 4-24
Guidelines section 15126.4(a), section 15370). Route 77 transit stop improvements would
not be effective at reducing school-related vehicle trips for several reasons:
MUSD is an educational agency and does not have the authority, expertise, or
administrative ability to develop, operate, and maintain a public transit stop.
Transit stop improvements would primarily benefit the VTA and community at
large (i.e., school students and staff would use transit service for very limited time
during school start and end periods) and would not be proportionate to the
roadway system impacts identified in Draft EIR Impacts TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA-3,
and CML-1.
Route 77 travels between Eastridge Shopping and Transit Center in San Jose and
the Great Mall in Milpitas. Most of Route 77 is therefore located outside the
proposed school attendance area (and the MUSD boundary) depicted on Figure 21 of the Draft EIR; thus, Route 77 would most likely only serve students that
reside along McCandless Drive, or near the Great Mall. Students that reside along
McCandless Drive are more likely to walk than take transit (given their proximity
to the campus and the lack of physical or other barriers). Students residing near
the Great Mall may take transit; however, as described in section 4.1.3 of the
Draft EIR, as well as Appendix C to the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not
expected to generate substantial transit ridership (just two staff members) because
it is a TK-6 elementary school project, with children attending typically between
the ages of 5 and 13. For this age range, students are most likely to be transported
to school by a parent, either by walking, biking, or by car, with some parents
anticipated to continue onto work after dropping the student off at school.
Accordingly, improving the transit stop is considered to be less technically and
cost-effective than promoting carpool and other trip control and reduction
measures contained in Draft EIR Mitigation Measures TRA-2A to 2D.
Route 77 does not travel along Montague Expressway. Rather, it serves a

residential and commercial area that can access the proposed School Site by
travelling southbound on Great Mall Parkway to McCandless Drive, and then
southbound on McCandless Drive to the proposed School Site. Accordingly,
expanding ridership on this transit service would not reduce or avoid the
cumulative significant impact cause by the project at the Montague Expressway /
Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue intersection (because it would not
displace vehicles coming from an area that would pass through this intersection).
Transit stop improvements would include a dedicated no parking area (see VTA
comments in section 4.3) that would reduce the available vehicle stacking length
the MUSD has incorporated into the project to avoid and limit temporary vehicle
queueing on McCandless Drive through lanes.
For these reasons, adding a mitigation measure to include transit stop improvements on
the proposed elementary schools McCandless Drive frontage would not be effective,
proportionate to the impact being mitigated, or appropriate for the project. Nonetheless,
the MUSD has coordinated with the City of Milpitas Traffic Engineering Division
through the projects development, including development and inclusion of the proposed
traffic signal at the schools main entrance, as evidenced by the listing of multiple City
staff, including Steve Chan, Traffic Engineer, in section 17.2 of the Draft EIR (persons
Page 4-25
and organizations consulted). This coordination has led to the inclusion of other
improvements to McCandless Drive in the project that would indirectly benefit Route 77
transit service and transit riders. For example, improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and the
traffic signal at McCandless Drive and DeLong Lane will improve walkability, and the
dedicated turning lane into the school campus would allow transit buses to continue to
travel northbound on McCandless Drive past vehicles turning into the school. The MUSD
also notes it has provided the VTA with the NOP and Draft EIR documents, and
responded to the VTAs comments submitted during the EIR process (see section 4.3
below). As such, the MUSD looks forward to continued coordination with the City and
the VTA on transportation-related issues even though it is not necessary or appropriate
for the MUSD to undertake Route 77 transit stop improvements at this time.
Comment B3: The City notes that Milpitas Fire Department access around the perimeter of the
proposed school campus and interior courtyard is essential for emergency response purposes and
provides materials previously sent to the MUSD team on this matter. The City requests the
MUSD continue to coordinate with the City of Milpitas Fire Department on public service
issues.
Response to Comment B3: The MUSD has coordinated with the City and its Fire
Department regarding emergency access throughout the projects development, as
indicated by the materials submitted by the City and the listing of multiple City staff,
including the Fire Marshall, in section 17.2 of the Draft EIR (persons and organizations
consulted). Fire department access is briefly discussed in section 2.3.2.1 and 9.3 of the
Draft EIR. As indicated in these sections, the proposed site plan includes a perimeter
access road around the proposed school buildings.
As described in more detail in section 2.1.3 of this Final EIR, the MUSD has clarified the
EIRs discussion of emergency fire access to indicate that emergency access via Houret
Drive is no longer anticipated as a result of the Lyon Communities District project;
however, as requested by the Milpitas Fire Department, the MUSD would provide a fire
apparatus road around the perimeter of the proposed school buildings, as well as limited
access to the schools interior courtyard via a drivable surface such as asphalt or concrete.
In addition, the MUSD would provide a fire water service loop that can be served from
two directions. The Draft EIR states (pg. 2-15 and 9-15) the MUSD would continue to
coordinate with the Milpitas Fire Department on issues such as fire access, fire hydrants,
and fire flows. The MUSD looks forward to continued coordination with the City on fire
access issues; however, the MUSD also notes that as indicated in Table 2-3 of the Draft
EIR, the Division of the State Architect is primarily responsible for reviewing school
plans and specifications for fire and life safety purposes.

Page 4-26

Comment Letter "C"
C1
C1
(Con't)
C2
C3
C4
C4
(Con't)
C5
C6
4.3
Page 4-31
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
The MUSD received six comments from the VTA that were generally related to pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity and access, trip reduction, and transit service. These comments are
summarized and responded to below.
Comment C1: The VTA notes the Draft EIR and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
prepared for the project identify several sidewalk gaps and noncompliant Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) pedestrian routes in the proposed school attendance area and
recommends three pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements that are not identified in the
Citys TASP or the MUSDs McCandless Drive Elementary School Project EIR.
Response to Comment C1: The Draft EIR acknowledges the proposed school is
anticipated to serve an approximately 0.7-square mile area (Draft EIR pg. 2-13) and
identifies the roadway system, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities in this area, as
well as the circulation, site access, and parking conditions at the proposed School Site
(Draft EIR section 4.1). As the VTA notes, the Draft EIR also identifies a few areas that
lack or have discontinuous sidewalks or other potential barriers such as at-grade railroad
crossings (Draft EIR section 4.1.5, Impact TRA-2, and Draft EIR Appendix D). Draft
EIR section 4.1.5 specifically mentions that the Citys TASP identifies a number of
planned (but unfunded) improvements such as new traffic signals, at-grade pedestrian
connections, and overhead pedestrian bridges that would enhance safe pedestrian access
across major arterial roads such as Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue and
Montague Expressway. The VTA recommends three additional improvements that are
not identified in the Citys TASP.
The VTA recommends installing a safe pedestrian connection over the Lower
Penitencia Creek and Union Pacific (UP) Railroad located approximately 450 feet
west of the proposed School Site, behind (west of) the D.R. Horton Harmony
residential development (see Draft EIR Figure 2-2). While such a connection
would provide more direct access for communities to the west and improve
walking distances, it is not considered feasible or appropriate mitigation for the
MUSD for several reasons.
First, the MUSD does not own or have any interest in the lands where such a
connection could be provided. Thus, this measure would require approvals the
MUSD does not have authority to implement or enforce. Second, it is not
economically feasible for the MUSD to fund this pedestrian bridge on its own,
which is estimated to cost several million dollars or more. Even if the MUSD
were to contribute to or share in the cost of constructing such a structure,
additional sources of funding would have to be secured. The MUSD considers
such funding unlikely to be available since the residential developments that
would receive the most benefit from the bridge have already been constructed and
have already contributed development impact fees to the City. Third, the
California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) Regulations Governing
Clearances on Railroads and Street Railroads with Reference to Side and
Overhead Structures, Parallel Tracks, Crossings of Public Roads, Highways and

Page 4-32
Streets (General Order Number 26-D) establish minimum side and overhead
clearances for railroad tracks used to transport freight cars, such as the UP track 1.
Compliance with this requirement would require the bridge to extend into the
existing developments on the east and west of the track, requiring modifications
that would encroach upon these developments. Thus, a bridge in this location is
considered technically and logistically infeasible. The bridge would also have to
span the Lower Penitencia Creek to avoid biological permitting and impacts,
causing the bridge and its associated infrastructure to extend further into existing
developments. Finally, while a pedestrian bridge in this location may improve
walkability, it would not reduce or avoid the cumulative significant impact caused
by the project at the Montague Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol
Avenue intersection (because it would not displace vehicles coming from an area
that would pass through this intersection). Thus, even if such an overcrossing
were feasible, it would not be effective at reducing or avoiding the projects
significant and unavoidable environmental effect. For these reasons, adding a
pedestrian bridge over the UP railroad track and Lower Penitencia Creek Channel
is not considered feasible or necessary for the proposed McCandless Drive
Elementary School Project.
The VTA recommends the City provide access at Houret Drive to connect with
future pedestrian facilities and existing bike route along Montague Expressway.
As described in more detail in section 2.1.3, the Lyon Communities District
project would develop the westernmost portion of Houret Drive, essentially
limiting what access the City and the MUSD can provide through the eastern side
of the School Property; however, the Citys TASP calls for the creation of
pedestrian / bicycle path along the Penitencia Creek East Channel, and Lyon
Communities has provided land for a pedestrian overcrossing that would connect
this planned path with the joint school and park site, promoting bicycle and
pedestrian access from Montague Expressway to the school.
The VTA notes the TASP plans for a future east-west pedestrian and bicycle route
along the Penitencia Creek East Channel and recommends a connection from this
trail to the proposed School Site be provided to improve access and connectivity
and reduce traveling distances to transit on Montague Expressway. As described
in the preceding bullet, Lyons Communities has provided land for such a
pedestrian overcrossing, which would be constructed by the City as part of its
capital improvement program at a future date. Thus, there is no need for the
MUSD to provide an overcrossing. The pedestrian bicycle route planned for in the
Citys TASP is located on the north and south side of the Penitencia Creek East
Channel. The proposed project does not interfere with this planned pedestrian and
bicycle route, which would run directly adjacent to the planned City Park
Property. In the interim time period before the overcrossing is constructed,
pedestrians walking along the bicycle and pedestrian path along the Penitencia
Creek East Channel would be able to turn south on McCandless Drive and access
the site from McCandless Drive.
General Order No. 26-D establishes minimum side and overhead clearances from the railroad tracks used for
transporting freight cars of 8 feet 6 inches and 22 feet 6 inches, respectively.
Page 4-33
Comment C2: The VTA recommends the MUSD work with the City to include high-quality
pedestrian accommodations along the McCandless Drive frontage that are consistent with TASP
development standards and design guidelines, including wide sidewalks and adequate buffer
strips that increase the quality of the pedestrian realm.
Response to Comment C2: The MUSD has coordinated with the City of Milpitas
Traffic Engineering Division throughout the projects development to ensure features that
improve traffic flow and circulation and promote safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle
access are included in the project design and development. Section 2.2.4 of the Draft EIR
describes several improvements to McCandless Drive including a traffic signal, lane
reconfiguration, and sidewalk widening (Draft EIR pgs. 2-11 and 2-12). The MUSD
notes the cost of these improvements is being borne by the MUSD, not the City, and
these improvements are generally consistent with the Citys TASP. Chapter 5 of the
Draft EIR, Aesthetics, section 5.2.5, includes a lengthy discussion of TASP policies
related to the general aesthetics and visual character of the site and its surroundings, and
the discussion under Impact AES-1 describes how site access, parking, and landscaping
are consistent with these TASP policies. In addition, Draft EIR Mitigation Measures
AES-1A, Site Configuration and Design Considerations, enforces consistency with TASP
design policies regarding landscaping buffers, service and deliver area locations, and
building setbacks, and Mitigation Measure AES-1B, Coordinate with the City of
Milpitas, requires the MUSD to continue to coordinate with the City to integrate the
school into the joint school / park site as much as possible. Thus, the proposed project
and the Draft EIRs mitigation measures already include and require high quality
pedestrian accommodations that are consistent with the TASP. Additional
accommodations and site design features are not necessary.
Comment C3: The VTA notes the McCandless Drive sidewalk and interior site sidewalks are
separated by a row of parking and several vehicle lanes, with only one, on-site, demarcated
pedestrian crossing located at the DeLong Lane intersection. The VTA therefore recommends
additional crosswalks be installed to minimize unsafe crossings of parking and loading areas.
The VTA also notes it is unclear whether a pedestrian path is provided along the perimeter of the
vehicular exit that provides access to the site interior.
Response to Comment C3: The VTAs observations of the conceptual site plan (Draft
EIR Figure 2-5) are generally accurate; however, the Draft EIR augments the conceptual
site plan with a discussion of site circulation in section 2.3.2 and an evaluation of
potential access issues under Impact TRA-2. As explained in section 2.3.2, a decorative
fence and bioswale along the McCandless Drive frontage would prohibit access from the
McCandless Drive sidewalk to the site. Thus, access would only occur through the sites
main entrance and exit points. The MUSD would provide a clearly demarcated
crosswalk at these areas and has revised the text in section 2.3.2 of the Draft EIR to
indicate that a perimeter walkway would permit bicyclists and pedestrians coming from
the north to access the site without crossing the sites main exit point or interior parking
and loading / unloading lanes. Additional pedestrian and bicycle access through the sites
main entrance at De Long Lane is desired because, as explained in the discussion under
Draft EIR Impact TRA-2, the MUSDs proposed traffic signal at this location would
include an exclusive scramble phase in which all vehicular traffic flow at the
intersection would be stopped and only pedestrian movements allowed.

Page 4-34
The proposed site plan meets California Department of Education standards for
accessibility, separate parking and loading / unloading areas, and minimizes interference
between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Mitigation Measures TRA-2A through 2D
would reduce vehicle trips and promote and provide for the safe, efficient, and supervised
on-site loading and unloading of students. Additional crosswalks are not necessary for the
project.
Comment C4: The VTA recommends the MUSD consider a comprehensive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for school employees.
Response to Comment C4: The MUSD thanks the VTA for its suggestion and has
revised Mitigation Measure TRA-2A to include an employee TDM Program for the
proposed school. As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, the employee TDM program
would include a central coordinator to oversee the program, a staff survey, preferential
parking, and other trip reduction measures determined to be suitable for school
employees.
Comment C5: The VTA supports and commends the MUSD for providing bicycle parking
consistent with VTA guidelines and provides examples of additional facilities that can be
provided, including lockers, and secure parking. The VTA also estimates the area (approximately
600 square feet) needed to provide the proposed bicycle parking described in the Draft EIR and
requests the location of the bicycle parking as it not shown on the conceptual site plan (Draft EIR
Figure 2-5).
Response to Comment C5: The MUSD thanks the VTA for its commendation and
estimate of the space needed to accommodate parking for up to 68 bicycles. The VTA is
correct that bicycle parking areas were not depicted on the conceptual site plan. This is
because the MUSD is still finalizing the site plan and has yet to receive DTSC and CDE
approval for use of the site as an elementary school. As noted in Mitigation Measure
TRA-2A, bicycle parking would be provided in a secure area (fenced and locked). As
shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, the MUSD has modified this measure to indicate
the amount of potential space necessary to accommodate 68 bicycles, and other facilities
that will be considered for inclusion in the secure bike parking area.
Comment C6: The VTA notes it has met with City staff regarding the creation of a new bus stop
on northbound McCandless Drive (across from Lee Way), that should include:
A 10-foot by 55-foot bus pad
A minimum 8-foot by 40-foot passenger sidewalk
A minimum 7-foot by 25-foot shelter pad with shelter (maintained by the developer)
A trash can (maintained by the developer)
A minimum of 100 feet of no parking / red curb at the bus stop

Response to Comment C6: As described in Response to Comment B-2, the MUSD does
not have the authority to plan, develop, and maintain public transit stops, nor would such
a mitigation measure be proportionate to the projects roadway impacts or effective at
reducing project related vehicle trips. Furthermore, as described on page 4-16 of the Draft
EIR, the TIA prepared for the project estimates that an elementary school with planned
enrollment of 800 students would require approximately 1,200 feet of stacking length.
The MUSD is proposing to provide approximately 650 feet of stacking length on-site,
Page 4-35
and would provide an additional 600 feet of stacking length on northbound McCandless
Drive. Implementing the recommended transit stop improvement, which would require a
minimum 100 feet of no parking / red curb at the bus stop (as noted by the VTA), would
reduce the total combined stacking length available to the school from 1,250 feet to 1,150
feet, below the level necessary to avoid temporary queueing and other indirect effects that
could lead to increased conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. As
indicated in Response to Comment B-2, the MUSD has coordinated with the City to
make improvements to McCandless Drive that are intended to promote the safe and
efficient flow of traffic into and out of the School Property and City Park Property. This
coordination has led to the inclusion of improvements to McCandless Drive frontage such
as sidewalks, crosswalks, and the traffic signal at McCandless Drive and DeLong Lane,
that will improve walkability. In addition, the dedicated turning lane into the school
campus would allow transit buses to continue to travel northbound on McCandless Drive
with minimal interruption or delays. The MUSD looks forward to continued coordination
with the City and the VTA on transportation-related issues even though it is not necessary
or appropriate for the MUSD to undertake Route 77 transit stop improvements at this
time.

Page 4-36

Comment Letter "D"
D1
D1
(Con't)
D2
D3
D4
D5
Page 4-40

4.4
Page 4-41
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALTRANS
The MUSD received four comments from Caltrans District 4. These comments were generally
related to the projects potential traffic impacts and recommendations for reducing vehicle trips.
Comment D1: Caltrans notes that the MUSD, as CEQA Lead Agency, is responsible for all
project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways, such as fair share cost
contributions, financing, monitoring, etc.
Response to Comment D1: Caltrans is correct that the MUSD, as CEQA Lead Agency, is
responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures included to avoid or
reduce the projects significant impacts. As discussed under Impact TRA-1 (Draft EIR
Chapter 4), the proposed project by itself would not result in any impact to the
transportation and circulation system in the vicinity of the school that exceeds an
applicable significance criterion. Thus, mitigation is not required for project-level
impacts. As discussed under Impact CML-1 (Draft EIR Chapter 14), however, the project
would contribute to a cumulative level-of-service (LOS) impact at the Montague
Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue intersection during the AM peak
hour only. The MUSD notes the discussion under Impact CML-1 on Draft EIR page 14-3
provides a factual explanation for why the MUSD has determined mitigation for this
impact, including cost sharing, is not feasible. In summary, fair-share contributions to a
large infrastructure project for vehicle trips that are already part or planned to become
part of the roadway system is not proportional to the projects contribution nor feasible or
as effective as the mitigation measures the MUSD has included in the project to reduce
vehicle trips and potential impacts from conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and
vehicles (Mitigation Measures TRA-2A to 2D).
Comment D2: Caltrans requests the MUSD include a freeway ramp analysis for the I-880 /
Montague Expressway on- and off-ramps and a I-880 freeway ramp segment analysis in the
projects environmental review because the project TIA indicates the project would generate
trips on these facilities.
Response to Comment D2: The MUSD thanks Caltrans for its comment and notes the
agency submitted a similar comment regarding the scope of the project TIA during the
NOP review period. Caltrans comments on the NOP were included in Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, considered during development of the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR pg. 3-2), and
the scope of the TIA was acknowledged as an area of controversy in the Draft EIR
Summary.
The MUSD and its traffic engineering consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants,
developed the proposed scope of the TIA in consultation with the City of Milpitas. As
explained in the Draft EIR (section 4.3.1) and the TIA (Draft EIR Appendix D, pgs. 1 and
22), the traffic impacts of the proposed school were evaluated relative to the LOS policies
of the City of Milpitas and the Santa Clara VTA. The Citys TASP and TASP EIR
assumed planned residential development within the Transit Area would generate new
school-related vehicle trips, and the TIA refines the distribution and assignments
considered in the Citys Travel Demand Forecast Model. Thus, the project is consistent
with the TASP and is not expected to add a large number of trips to regional facilities
such as I-880 that are outside the immediate vicinity of the school. For this reason, the
project is not anticipated to impact regional freeway facilities nor require a freeway
impact analysis.
Page 4-42
Comment D3: Caltrans encourages the MUSD to increase on-campus bicycle parking, provide
shuttle service, and consider participating in the 511.org School Pool Ride Match service to
promote walking, biking, and carpooling to school.
Response to Comment D3: The MUSD notes the proposed project would provide secure
bicycle parking consistent with VTA recommendations (68 spaces, see response to
comment C5). The MUSD also notes the proposed school location is along VTA Bus
Route 77, and that the proposed improvements to McCandless Drive would indirectly
benefit this service and pedestrians using McCandless Drive. To be effective, a shuttle
service would need to operate from neighborhoods that have a large pool of students
attending the McCandless Drive school. Such neighborhoods are located to the north and
west of the school site, which would not reduce or avoid trips passing through the
Montague Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue intersection, which is
located to the north east of the school (see response to comment B2). Thus, a shuttle
service is not required to mitigate the proposed projects significant intersection LOS
impacts.
The MUSD thanks Caltrans for its recommendation to participate in the 511.org
SchoolPool RideMatch service. As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, the MUSD has
revised Mitigation Measure TRA-2A to include use of this resource as a means to reduce
school-related vehicle trips.
Comment D4: Caltrans recommends the MUSD evaluate walking and bicycling routes to the
proposed school for safety and directness. Caltrans also recommends the MUSD work with the
City to plan and fund projects or treatments to improve safety and directness.
Response to Comment D4: Comment noted. Draft EIR Impact TRA-2 evaluates and
discusses walking and bicycling routes to the proposed school for potential areas of
conflicts, and Mitigation Measure TRA-2C requires the MUSD to work with the City to
develop a Suggested Routes to School Map that avoids areas of conflict to the extent
feasible. The MUSD notes the proposed project also includes a number of improvements
to McCandless Drive to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic into and out of the
site (e.g., lane reconfiguration, sidewalk widening, installation of a traffic signal).
Comment D5: Caltrans notes the project would provide a total of 148 parking spaces, although
City standards require only 52. Therefore, Caltrans, recommends the MUSD consider a reduction
in parking.
Response to Comment D5: Comment noted. As described under Draft EIR Impact TRA1, the proposed project would provide approximately 88 on-site parking spaces, which
would be augmented by an additional 40 off-site parking spaces along northbound
McCandless Drive. Thus, approximately 128 total parking spaces would be available
during normal school operating hours. The City code would require approximately 50 to
64 total parking spaces for an elementary school. The MUSD notes that the parking area
was developed in coordination with the City and is intended to provide sufficient parking
for the sites use as a school and City park. A reduction in parking is not necessary, nor
considered appropriate for the project.

Comment Letter "E"

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Rob Means
CEQAinput@musd.org
Robert Nuez; Danny Lau; Chris Norwood; Dan Bobay; Gunawan Ali-Santosa; Cary Matsuoka
[CEQAinput] McCandless Drive Elementary School Draft EIR
Monday, December 28, 2015 10:41:26 AM
MUSD EIR feedback.odt
McCandless Property EIR (Environmental Impact Report) Feedback
E1
The MUSD elementary school project will make a significant adverse impact on both traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Both factors are related to, and result from,
unnecessary and excessive use of automobiles for accessing the new school. Giving due
regard to the urgency of reducing GHG emissions to forestall the worst impacts of Global
Warming, MUSD must make every reasonable effort to mitigate both traffic congestion and
GHG emissions.
E2
One mitigation option not considered in the EIR is an elevated loop of advanced transit
technology that could safely and quickly deliver a major percentage of students, staff, and
parents to the school. Like most transportation officials, staff, and experts, Hexagon
Transportation Consultants displays a remarkable ignorance of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).
They also seem unaware of a long-standing proposal to create a $48M PRT loop to serve the
transit area. For both reasons, they cannot be faulted for not including such a loop as a way to
mitigate the traffic congestion that this project will aggravate.
EXISTING STATUS
Regarding GHG emissions, section 3.2 (RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS) of Appendix C
(AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS CALCULATIONS) notes that nearly one-half
(230 of 526, or 44%) of annual MTCO2e emissions resulting from this project come from
On-Road Mobile Sources. The Average Daily Trip Rate of 284 trips results in an annual
vehicle miles traveled of 574,503 miles. Both emissions and miles cost our community
unaccounted for dollars and health consequences.
E3
Furthermore, both the estimates of traffic and GHG emissions are below what we should
expect. Of the trips to and from the school, the modeling uses the CalEEMod defaults of 65%
for parents driving children to/from school, 30% for staff trips, and 5% due to vendor
deliveries. But we don't have a default situation with this school. Due to the reduced
number of students who are likely to walk, bike, or skateboard to school in such a high-traffic,
barrier-ridden area, the 65% number is significantly lower - and the 30% number is
significantly higher - than what should be expected. This is borne out on Executive Summary
page S-24. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), this EIR identifies the
scope of the transportation impact analysis prepared for project as an area of controversy.
E4
According to Table ES-1, Level of service for three Montague Expressway intersections
(Main Street, McCandless Drive, and Great Mall Drive) are expected to be at LOS F when the
area is built out (2030). By the time the school opens, all three intersections will be at LOS E
or F with average delay times ranging from 61 to 120 seconds. In Milpitas, the minimum
acceptable level of service at intersections is LOS D. So, this school contributes to what is
already a sub-standard and worsening situation.
E4
(Con't)
As noted in APPENDIX D, MARCH 2015 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

(TIA) FOR McCANDLESS DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT, the proposed
project would generate 578 trips during the AM peak hour, 386 trips during the mid-day peak
hour, and 205 trips during the PM peak hour. The EIR clearly outlines the significant impact
to the intersection at Montague Expressway/Great Mall Parkway and Capitol Avenue. This
intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during both the AM and PM
peak hours under cumulative conditions.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
The EIR correctly notes there are no feasible improvements that can be constructed at-grade
at this location. [emphasis added] However, this EIR repeats the MTASP (Milpitas Transit
Area Master Plan) EIR's incorrect assertion that a $40M grade-separated urban interchange is
the only feasible improvement at this intersection. Conveniently omitted is any mention of
using grade-separated advanced transit.
E5
The EIR further re-enforces the notion of an urban interchange as the solution and justifies
not taking additional steps by stating that Traffic mitigation fees paid to the City of
Milpitas by the future residential development within in the MTASP, which are the source of
the trips generated by the proposed school project, may be used to contribute funding towards
a future urban interchange project. Noting that such an improvement lacks funding and there
is no schedule for implementation, the EIR concludes that the impact at this location should
be considered significant and unavoidable.
Finally, the MUSD has determined that contributing a fair share of the cost for roadway
improvements is inappropriate and infeasible for two reasons. First, some of the vehicle trips
that would occur with the project are not new trips but rather trips that are being shifted
from another school. Second, the MUSD does not have primary authority to guarantee the
timely or successful implementation, effectiveness, and monitoring of roadway infrastructure
improvements funded through a cost-sharing program. Although both reasons warrant
consideration, neither is a valid excuse for MUSD to avoid its share of a potential mitigation.
MODE SHARE
E6
Because of perceived issues with student safety, very few transit trips are made by students to
and from elementary schools. Again, Hexagon reveals no knowledge of the impact of PRT
systems which offers safe, private rides from origin to destination station both of which are
monitored by video surveillance.
Likewise, the 3% estimate of staff using transit is based on traditional transit options. The
E6
(Con't)
actual number would likely double or triple if a PRT system would deliver staff members
from the BART, LRT, and bus stations that stand one-half mile away to a station near the
school. Even the estimate that 20% of the future students would walk to school could rise
dramatically when supported by a PRT system that transports students from farther away
(than the .4 mile distance used in projections) to within a short walk of school.
PRT WOULD MITIGATE OTHER PROBLEMS
During the interim period when the proposed school is constructed and when the MTASP is
built out, there may be neighborhoods that are not accessible to the school via a convenient
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian routes. Residents of these areas
may be required to drive or carpool their children to school. Because convenient ADA
compliant pedestrian access cannot be guaranteed to all of the areas in the school attendance
boundaries without future improvements that are beyond the reasonable control of the
District, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. The number of such residents
could be substantially reduced when served by a PRT loop.
E7
As cited in Impact TRA-2 (EIR,page 4-15),various factor lead to, and make it difficult to
evaluate, conflicts and/or dangerous interactions between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.
Although by implementing Mitigation Measures TRA-2A to 2D, the MUSD would reduce
such conflicts, a PRT serving the area would further reduce them to a negligible level.
Additionally, a PRT loop would provide easier access to the new school that is deliberately
made more difficult by Mitigation Measure TRA-2C (page 4-18). That measure calls for the
Suggested Routes to School program to advise against use of 1) routes that cross at-grade
railroad tracks within the school attendance area; and 2) travel along Montague Expressway,
between Great Mall Parkway and McCandless Drive. Observing those restrictions will
significantly increase the distance to school for most students.
Chapter 3 (Land Use, Circulation, and Parks) of the Citys TASP outlines broad policies
related
E8
to transportation and circulation within the Citys Transit Area, with an emphasis on
improving
and encouraging walking, bicycling, and transit use. These policies include constructing a
$10M pedestrian / bicycle bridge over Montague expressway near the Penitencia Creek East
Channel to connect schools and neighborhoods north and south of Montague Expressway
(Policy 3.26 and Policy 6.29). A PRT loop would eliminate the need for this crossing and
save the City its $10M cost.
SUMMARY
E9
Although the school project will be responsible for only a small fraction of the LOS F at the
Montague/Great Mall intersection, an effective mitigation would help the entire school
E9
(Con't)
community. A PRT loop would help school staff, students, and parents avoid significant
delays in their commutes. Such a $48M PRT loop would also obviate the need for $50M of
planned projects (Montague Expressway $40M urban interchange and $10M pedestrian /
bicycle bridge).
Furthermore, one of the MUSDs objectives for the proposed school project is To incorporate
sustainable design features that reduce the MUSDs environmental footprint into a new
elementary school campus in the City of Milpitas Transit Area. Creation of a PRT loop
would go a long way toward the desirable - and ultimately necessary - goal of sustainability.
E10
The MUSD can immediately take two low-cost, high-leverage actions to support a PRT loop
in the area around the new school. First, contribute financially to the effort by Sunnyhills
Neighborhood Association (SNA) to on behalf of a PRT loop as described at
http://sunnyhillsneighborhood.org/crossing.html. Second, urge the Milpitas City Council to
pursue the option of a PRT loop by including a PRT pilot project into the City's Capital
Improvement Program.
E11
While acknowledging that MUSD is not primarily responsible for the congestion and GHG
emissions that will accompany a new school, making an effort on behalf of a PRT loop is
consistent with MUSD's ethical obligations and objective of sustainable design.
-Rob Means,1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913
408-262-0420h, 408-262-8975w, rob.means@electric-bikes.com
4.5
Page 4-47
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ROB MEANS
The MUSD received 11 comments from Mr. Rob Means. These comments were generally
related to the projects potential traffic and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with
vehicle travel and additional mitigation in the form of personal rapid transit (PRT).
Comment E1: The commenter states that the McCandless Drive Elementary School Project will
result in significant, adverse traffic congestion and GHG emissions stemming from unnecessary
and excessive use of automobiles to access the new school and urges the MUSD to make every
reasonable effort to mitigate traffic congestion and GHG emissions.
Response to Comment E1: The commenter is correct that the proposed project will result
in a significant adverse impact related to traffic congestion. As described in Draft EIR
Chapter 14 (pg. 14-3), the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, would contribute to a cumulatively significant AM peak
hour impact at the Montague Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue
intersection. This cumulative impact would occur because the project would cause the
critical delay and volume to capacity ration at this intersection to increase by 12.7
seconds and 0.026, respectively, under the cumulative plus project condition, which
exceeds criteria established by the City of Milpitas and the Santa Clara VTA.
The commenter is incorrect that the project would result in significant, adverse GHG
emissions. As explained in Draft EIR section 3.3.3.3, the projects GHG emissions were
analyzed using the methodologies and assumptions recommended by the BAAQMDs
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as revised in May 2011 (Draft EIR page 3-7). GHG
emissions from project construction and operation were estimated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2, and presented in detail in
Draft EIR Appendix C (Draft EIR pg. 4-7). The results of the modeling indicate project
GHG emissions (526 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year)
would be well below the BAAQMDs GHG CEQA significance threshold of 1,100
MTCO2e per year. The BAAQMD GHG threshold used in the Draft EIR is the emissions
level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing
California legislation that has been adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions
(BAAQMD 2009). As such, the project would not result in a significant adverse GHG
impact.
Comment E2: The commenter states that the Draft EIR did not provide information on a longstanding proposal to create a $48 million PRT system to serve the City of Milpitas Transit Area,
nor did it consider the PRT or other elevated, advanced transit system as mitigation for traffic
congestion.
Response to Comment E2: The commenter is correct that the Draft EIR did not contain
information on PRT systems. As shown in section 2.4 of this Final EIR, the MUSD has
added information on PRT systems to the Draft EIR; however, as described in more
detail in section 2.4 and Response to Comment E6, E7, and E10, a PRT system is not
considered feasible or effective mitigation for the proposed project.
Comment E3: The commenter summarizes information in the Draft EIR GHG analyses and
expresses disagreement with the EIRs reliance on default trip type assumptions embedded in
CalEEMod and used to estimate project GHG emissions. The commenter also asserts more
students will drive to school than assumed in the analysis because the proposed school would be
Page 4-48
located in a high-traffic, barrier-ridden area, and that the EIR acknowledges this by identifying
the scope of the transportation impact analysis as an area of controversy.
Response to Comment E3: Draft EIR Appendix C contains detailed information on the
methodology used to estimate the projects potential GHG emissions. As noted by the
commenter, this information indicates that on-road mobile sources (i.e., cars and other
vehicles) would account for 824 average daily weekday trips, 574,503 annual vehiclemiles travelled, and nearly 44 percent of the projects total GHG emissions. The
commenter states these levels of traffic and GHG emissions underestimate the projects
impacts, but does not provide alternative assumptions for the MUSD to consider.
The Draft EIR makes a reasoned, good-faith effort to accurately and adequately disclose
the potential traffic and GHG impacts of the project. The scope of the projects TIA was
developed in coordination with the City of Milpitas, and the basis for the projects trip
generation and distribution assumptions are explained in section 4.3.2 of the Draft EIR.
As discussed in section 4.3.2, the TIA conservatively assumes that only 20 percent of
students would walk to school (i.e., 80 percent would be driven), which is likely to be an
underestimate given that 40 percent of the residences in the schools proposed attendance
area are located within 0.4 miles of the School Site.
In contrast, the GHG analysis assumes the CalEEMod default - 35 percent of students
would walk to school (i.e., 65 percent would be driven) - which is higher than the TIA
estimate but still likely to be a slight underestimate given the amount of high density
residential developments and residential units within 0.4 miles of the School Site.
Regardless, even if the MUSD were to assume that 80 percent or even 100 percent of
students would be driven, the projects GHG emissions would remain at a level that is
below BAAQMD CEQA thresholds (See response to comment B1). This is because
mobile emissions would go up by 35 percent at most, from approximately 230 to 310
MTCO2e. The MUSD also notes that all parent trips were assumed to travel two-miles,
meaning that the model overestimated GHG emissions for those trips that originate much
closer than two miles, whereas staff trips were assumed to travel 7.3 miles. Lowering the
staff trip rate and increasing the parent trip rate would therefore reduce total vehicle miles
travelled to levels below that identified in the EIR.
Finally, the commenter is correct that the Draft EIR acknowledges the scope of the TIA
as an area of controversy. CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(2) requires an EIR to
contain a brief summary that identifies areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency,
including issues raised by agencies and the public. As summarized in sections 1.4.1 and
3.2 of the Draft EIR, the MUSD received comments from Caltrans and the VTA
suggesting intersections and facilities to evaluate in the TIA. These comments were not
related to trip generation and the Draft EIRs acknowledgement of the scope of the TIA
as an area of controversy was not intended to imply that the trip generation assumptions
contain in the Draft EIR were not well reasoned and factually substantiated.
Comment E4: The commenter summarizes existing, background, and cumulative conditions
shown in Table ES-1 of Draft EIR Appendix D and notes that the proposed school would
contribute traffic to sub-standard and worsening traffic conditions, including a significant AM
peak hour (7 to 9 AM) impact at the Montague Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-Capitol
Avenue intersection under the cumulative plus project condition.

Page 4-49
Response to Comment E4: Comment noted. The commenters summary of the level of
service and average intersection delay information presented for existing, background,
and cumulative conditions is consistent with that presented in the Draft EIRs traffic
analysis (Chapter 4) and related technical appendix (Draft EIR Appendix D).
Comment E5: The commenter states the Draft EIR did not consider grade separated advanced
transit as mitigation for the projects traffic impacts. The commenter also states the MUSD
should provide its fair share of funding to avoid potential traffic impacts.
Response to Comment E5: The commenter is correct that the Draft EIR did not contain
information on grade-separated mitigation at the Montague Expressway / Great Mall
Parkway-East Capitol Avenue intersection. As shown in section 2.4 of this Final EIR, the
MUSD has added information on grade-separated systems to the Draft EIR; however, as
described in more detail in section 2.4 and Response to Comment E6, E7, and E10, a
grade-separated advanced transit system is not considered a feasible, proportionate, or
effective mitigation for the projects roadway impacts.
As described in section 14.2.1, the MUSD determined that cost-sharing of at-grade
roadway improvements is not proportionate to Impact CML-1, nor effective at reducing
the projects vehicle trips. The MUSD District does not have primary authority to
guarantee the timely or successful implementation, effectiveness, and monitoring of
roadway infrastructure improvements funded through a cost-sharing program. Rather, as
described in Mitigation Measured TRA-2A through 2D, the Draft EIR requires the
MUSD to reduce school-related vehicle trips and promote the safe and efficient loading
and unloading of students at the School Site. The MUSD considers the direct control and
reduction of vehicle trips to be a more effective and feasible mitigation measure than at
grade or grade-separated roadway improvements.
Comment E6: The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIRs assumptions regarding transit
ridership and states ridership would double or triple if a PRT system were in place.
Response to Comment E6: Comment noted. The Draft EIR and the projects TIA
assumptions regarding transit ridership are based on existing transit conditions. There is
no existing or under-construction PRT system that can be used to access the joint school
and City park site. As described in section 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR, as well as Appendix C
to the Draft EIR, the proposed project is not expected to generate substantial transit
ridership (just two staff members) because it is a TK-6 elementary school project, with
children attending typically between the ages of 5 and 13. For this age range, students are
most likely to be transported to school by a parent, either by walking, biking, or by car,
with some parents anticipated to continue onto work after dropping the student off at
school. The MUSD notes that even if staff ridership on transit services were to double
(four staff) or triple (six staff), this increase would be minimal and not enough to warrant
development of separate transit service for the school, nor a financial contribution to the
development of such service (see also section 2.4 of this Final EIR and Response to
Comment E7 and E10).
Comment E7: The commenter notes there are neighborhoods that may not have access to ADA
compliant pedestrian facilities and routes to the school and suggests a PRT loop would
substantially reduce vehicle trips and improve site access. The commenter also notes Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure TRA-2C would increase the distance to school for most students.

Page 4-50
Response to Comment E7: The Draft EIR acknowledges the proposed school is
anticipated to serve an approximately 0.7-square mile area (Draft EIR pg. 2-13) and
identifies the roadway system, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities in this area, as
well as the circulation, site access, and parking conditions at the proposed School Site
(Draft EIR section 4.1).
As discussed in section 2.5 of this Final EIR, the SNA has advocated for a PRT system in
the City of Milpitas, with an initial pilot project intended to increase awareness and
pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods on the east and west sides of Montague
Expressway (south of Great Mall Parkway-East Capitol Avenue). As the conceptual
eastern station for this pilot PRT project is located outside the proposed schools
attendance area, the MUSD does not anticipate this pilot project, once built, would be
effective at reducing school related vehicle trips.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2C requires the MUSD, in coordination with the City of
Milpitas, to prepare a map that suggests safe routes to the proposed McCandless Drive
Elementary School, considering facilities such as traffic lights, crosswalks, bikeways and
safety factors such as at-grade railroad crossings and areas where no sidewalks are
present, such as the west side of Montague Expressway. The mitigation measure is not
intended to prohibit any particular route, only to identify those routes that pose the least
amount of safety hazards for parents and students choosing to walk to school. The routes
that avoid known areas that pose a hazard may be longer, depending on the neighborhood
and origin of the trip. This would not result in an environmental impact, and as discussed
in Response to Comment E3, the TIA conservatively assumes only 20% of students
would walk to the school (i.e., the TIA adequately captures the quantity of students that
may be driven to the campus because their parents determine there is no safe walking
route from home to school and back).
Comment E8: The commenter notes that the Citys TASP includes policies related to
transportation and circulation in the Transit Area, with an emphasis on improving and
encouraging walking, bicycling, and transit use, including construction of a pedestrian / bicycle
bridge over Montague Expressway along the Penitencia Creek East Channel (TASP Policies 3.26
and 6.29. The commenter notes a PRT system would avoid the need for this City bridge and save
the City $10 million.
Response to Comment E8: Comment noted. The Draft EIR acknowledges the Citys
TASP policies 3.26 and 6.29 in Draft EIR section 4.2.7. This planned but not yet
constructed facility would improve walkability in the Transit Area. As described in
section 2.4, the Lyon Communities District project included land for the construction of
this bridge.
Comment E9: The commenter acknowledges the proposed school would be responsible for a
small fraction of the LOS F conditions at Montague Expressway / Great Mall Parkway-East
Capitol Avenue intersection, but that effective mitigation would benefit the entire school
community. The commenter notes a PRT loop would help school staff, students, and parents,
avoid significant delays in their commutes and would be consistent with MUSDs objective to
incorporate sustainable design features into the project that reduce the projects environmental
footprint.
Response to Comment E9: Comment noted. A PRT or other roadway and circulation
system improvements that alleviate congestion and vehicle trips would provide local and
Page 4-51
regional benefits; however, as described in section 2.4 of this Final EIR and Response to
Comment E6, E7, and E10, such improvements are outside the authority of the MUSD,
not proportionate to the projects roadway impacts, and most likely ineffective at
reducing school related vehicle trips.
Draft EIR section 2.3.3 outlines the sustainable design features that the proposed state-ofthe-art elementary school facilities would include, such as solar photovoltaic panels, solar
water heaters, and a ground source heat pump system. In addition, as noted throughout
the Draft EIR, the MUSD has incorporated mitigation measures into the project where
necessary and feasible to reduce the projects significant environmental effect. A PRT
system is not necessary for the MUSD to achieve this project objective.
Comment E10: The commenter recommends the MUSD take two low cost actions to support a
PRT loop in the area around the new school: 1) Contribute financially to the PRT effort
advocated by the SNA; and 2) Urge the Milpitas City Council to pursue the option of a PRT loop
by including a PRT pilot project in the Citys Capital Improvement Program.
Response to Comment E10: Comment noted. The MUSD is an educational agency and
does not provide monetary contributions to local neighborhood associations nor does it
advise the City Council on transportation planning matters that do not directly involve
MUSD-owned land or facilities. As described in Response to Comment E9, while a PRT
system or other roadway and circulatory system improvements that alleviates congestion
and vehicle trips would provide local and regional benefits, such improvements are
outside the authority of the MUSD, not proportionate to the projects roadway impacts,
and most likely ineffective at reducing school related vehicle trips (see also section 2.4 of
this Final EIR and Response to Comment E6, and E7).
Comment E11: The commenter acknowledges the MUSD is not primarily responsible for
congestion and GHG emissions that will accompany a new school, but notes supporting a PRT
loop is consistent with the MUSDs ethical obligations and sustainable design objective for the
project.
Response to Comment E11: Comment noted. Remarks related to ethical obligations are
not germane to the CEQA process. As discussed in Response to Comment E9, the Draft
EIR includes a discussion of the sustainable design features incorporated into the project.
A PRT system is not necessary for the MUSD to achieve its project objective related to
sustainable design.
4.6
REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2009. Revised Draft Options and
Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance.
October 2009. San Francisco, CA.

Page 4-52

Page 5-1
CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines, which state:
When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program
for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or
made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects
(15074(d)) and;
The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on
mitigation, or both. Reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is
presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required
at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation
measure. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.
There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best
suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.
(15097 (c))
Table 5-1 beginning on the next page list the impacts, mitigation measures, and timing of the
mitigation measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the McCandless Drive
Elementary School Project. All of the mitigation measures listed here will be implemented by the
MUSD, or by their appointees.
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 (a) (2), Mitigation measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. In the
case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can
be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. Therefore, all mitigation
measures as listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the MUSD Board of Education if and when
the project is approved.

Page 5-2

Page 5-3
Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Impact
Implementation
and Timing
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Monitoring: The
MUSD shall review all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
engineering and site
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
documents for inclusion
of aesthetic measures.
The MUSD shall verify
appropriate City staff
received school site
plans.
Initials: ______
AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1:
Implementation of the
McCandless Drive
Elementary School Project
would change the existing
visual character and quality
of the project area and its
surroundings.
Mitigation Measure AES-1A: Site

Configuration and Design Considerations
To promote project consistency with the
Citys TASP and adjacent existing and
planned development approved under the
TASP, the MUSD shall implement the
following site configuration and design
measures to the maximum extent feasible:
The final site configuration shall, to the
maximum extent feasible:
o Maximize building setbacks from
property lines as much as possible by
providing parking or other areas
between property lines and school
buildings
o Place school service and delivery
areas away from McCandless Drive
o Include a vegetated / landscaped
buffer between McCandless Drive and
the sites main parking area
o Provide a row of landscaping trees
within the vegetated / landscaped
buffer between McCandless Drive and
the sites main parking area and an
additional row between the parking
lot and the school.
New school buildings shall be articulated
and modulated (changes in depth along
the building faade) to minimize bulk
and massing and provide visual interest.
Exterior building walls shall avoid glass
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
plan (e.g. building,
grading,
improvement plans)
documents. The
MUSD shall provide
a copy of final site
plans to the
appreciate City staff
involved in
development of the
adjacent City park.
Timing: Prior to
any school
construction grounddisturbing activities
(i.e., not remedial
activities).

Date: ________
Page 5-4

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
any school
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of aesthetic measures.
Initials: ______
curtain walls.
Bright primary colors and pastels should
be avoided on exterior building walls
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment (if
installed) shall be concealed from ground
level views through a roof design that is
architecturally integrated with the
buildings, such as equipment wells and
parapets.
Mitigation Measure AES-1B:
Coordination with the City of Milpitas
The MUSD shall continue to coordinate
with City staff and consultants involved in
the planning and design of the adjacent City
park so that the proposed school facilities
and proposed City park facilities may be
integrated as much as feasible by the time
the MUSD starts project construction
activities.
Impact AES-2:
Implementation of the
McCandless Drive
would result in new sources
of light and glare that could
affect day or nighttime views
in the project area.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: Avoid and

Minimize Light Spillage and Glare from
Exterior Light Fixtures
To avoid and minimize light spillage and
glare from exterior light fixtures, the
MUSD shall, to the maximum extent
feasible:
Mount light fixtures as low as possible
and orient the fixtures away from
adjacent land uses
Equip all exterior light fixtures with
hoods or guards that direct light down
towards the ground surface

Date: ________
Page 5-5

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Use the minimum number of fixtures and
minimum lighting levels necessary to
provide sufficient security lighting
Consider use of light sources that provide
a white light for better color
representation and a more pedestrianfriendly environment
Implementation
and Timing
(i.e., not remedial
activities).
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of dust control
measures. The MUSD
shall monitor to ensure
dust control measures
are implemented.
Initials: ______
AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: Construction
and operation of the proposed
McCandless Drive School
project would generate
criteria air pollutant
emissions.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Reduce

Fugitive Dust Emissions
To reduce potential fugitive dust that may
be generated by project remediation and
construction activities, the MUSD shall
implement the following BAAQMD basic
construction measures:
Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) two times per day
during construction and adequately wet
demolition surfaces to limit visible dust
emissions. If feasible and approved for
use by the City of Milpitas and the
DTSC, recycled water obtained from the
City shall be used for dust control
purposes.
Cover all haul trucks transporting soil,
sand, or other loose materials off the
project site.
Use wet power vacuum street sweepers
at least once per day to remove all visible
mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads (dry power sweeping is
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate this air
quality mitigation
measure into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
any grounddisturbing activities,
unless otherwise
specified.

Date: ________
Page 5-6

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
prohibited) during construction of the

propose project.
Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads/areas
shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.
Complete all areas to be paved as soon as
possible and lay building pads as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
Minimize idling time of diesel powered
construction equipment to five minutes
and post signs reminding workers of this
idling restriction at access points and
equipment staging areas during
construction of the proposed project
Maintain and properly tune all
construction equipment in accordance
with manufacturers specifications and
have a CARB-certified visible emissions
evaluator check equipment prior to use at
the site.
Post a publicly visible sign with the
name and telephone number of the
construction contractor and MUSD staff
person to contact regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond
and take corrective action within 48
hours. The publicly visible sign shall also
include the contact phone number for the
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Where feasible, alternative fueled
construction equipment would be used
Verified
Implementation
Page 5-7

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate this air
quality mitigation
measure into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
unless otherwise
specified.
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of emissions control
measures and
contractors evidence /
verification that
equipment complies
with the control
requirements.
Initials: ______
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
Initials: ______
(e.g., electric or bio-diesel powered

equipment).
Impact AIR-2: Construction
of the McCandless Drive
School Project would
generate and/or expose
receptors to toxic air
contaminants.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Reduce

Construction Emissions and Associated
Health Risks at Adjacent Residential
Receptors
During construction, the projects
construction contractor shall use
construction equipment fitted with Level 2
Diesel Particulate Filters and engines that
meet the U.S. EPA-Certified Tier 3
emissions standards for equipment of 80
horsepower or more. The construction
contractor shall maintain a list of all
operating equipment in use on the project
site for verification by the MUSD or other
appropriate official or their designee. The
construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction
equipment onsite. Equipment shall be
properly serviced and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers
recommendations.
Date: ________
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Construction
and operation of the
McCandless Drive
could result in impacts to
special-status species, nesting
birds, and roosting bats.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1A: Avoid and

Minimize Tree Removal Impacts
The MUSD shall retain all protected and
other trees at the proposed school site to the
maximum extent feasible, given tree health
and campus space needs. This shall be
accomplished by:
Prior to the start of construction
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and

Date: ________
Page 5-8

Impact
Mitigation Measure
activities, the MUSD shall retain a
certified arborist to survey and evaluate
whether any on-site trees to be removed
as a result of the project qualify for
protected status per section X-2-7.01 of
the City of Milpitas Municipal Code (i.e.,
a tree with a 37-inch or greater
circumference [approximately 12-inch
diameter] as measured 4.5 feet from the
ground).
Trees to be retained shall be enclosed in
a tree protection zone to prevent direct
damage to the trees. Temporary fencing
shall be installed for each tree or group
of trees at their drip line or, if it is not
feasible to install fencing at the drip line,
at a minimum five-foot radius from the
trunk.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1B: Avoid and
Minimize Impacts to Burrowing Owl
To avoid and minimize impacts to
burrowing owl, the MUSD shall:
Retain a qualified biologist to provide
education and training for on-site
construction personnel prior to the start
of construction activities. The training
shall describe how to identify burrowing
owl, explain the status and regulations
protecting the species, and review the
mitigation measures in place to avoid and
minimize impacts to the species. The
biologist shall provide a handout that
summarizes the training, including color
Implementation
and Timing
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
unless otherwise
specified.
Monitoring
Responsibility
of biological measures.
The MUSD shall review
all necessary surveys,
reports, etc. required by
the measures prior to the
start of ground
disturbing activities,
unless otherwise
specified.

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-9

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
photos to assist with identification of

burrowing owl and project mitigation
measures in place to reduce impacts to
burrowing owl.
Retain a qualified biologist to perform a
pre-construction survey of project area
for burrowing owl. The survey shall be
conducted in accordance with the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation and Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
o If no burrowing owl activity is
detected, no further surveys shall be
necessary.
o If burrowing owl or signs of
burrowing owl are observed, then no
disturbance shall occur within 160
feet of occupied burrows during the
non-breeding season (September 1
through January 31) or within 250 feet
during the breeding season (February
1 through August 31).
o A qualified biologist shall be present
on-site to monitor construction and
ensure burrowing owl is not disturbed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1C: Avoid and
Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds
Prior to commencing initial site remediation
and initial construction activities (e.g., site
preparation or grading) that would start
during the migratory bird nesting season
(February 1st to August 31st), the MUSD
Verified
Implementation
Page 5-10

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
shall retain a qualified biologist to perform

a preconstruction survey to identify active
nests that may be disturbed by project
remediation and construction activities. The
pre-construction survey shall take place no
more than 10 days prior to the start of
remediation and/or construction activities,
and shall survey all habitat within 50 feet of
the proposed site (for nesting passerines)
and all trees within 250 feet of the proposed
site (for nesting raptors). If an active nest is
found, the biologist shall, in coordination
with CDFW, designate an appropriate
construction-free buffer zone size (typically
250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other
birds) and delineate the buffer using
fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow-caution
tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained
around all active nest sites until the young
have fledged.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1D: Avoid and
Minimize Impacts to Roosting Bats
The MUSD shall retain a qualified biologist
to perform a pre-construction survey for
maternity (March 1st to August 1st) or
colony bat roosts (year-round). The preconstruction survey shall be performed no
more than 10 days prior to any tree removal
activities, and shall include a visual
inspection of trees to be removed for signs
of bats, such as: sightings of live or
deceased bats, bat calls or squeaking, the
smell of bats, bat droppings, grease or urine
Verified
Implementation
Page 5-11

Impact
Implementation
and Timing
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of cultural resource
measures and if
necessary, shall take
action as specified in the
Initials: ______
stains around openings in trees, or flies

around such openings. Trees with multiple
hollows, crevices, forked branches,
woodpecker holes, or loose and flaking bark
have the highest chance of occupation and
shall be inspected most carefully. If signs of
bats are detected, the biologist shall contact
CDFW for recommendations on how to
proceed with construction activities. Echolocation surveys may be needed to verify
the presence of bats, or a no-disturbance
exclusion zone may be established around
the occupied tree until the bats leave the
roost. Due to restrictions of the California
Health Department, direct contact by
workers with any bat is not allowed. The
qualified bat biologist will be contacted
immediately if a bat roost is discovered
during project construction.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: Project
construction could disturb
unrecorded historical,
archaeological,
paleontological, and tribal
cultural resources and/or
unrecorded human remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1A: Minimize

and Avoid Impacts to Unrecorded
Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and Human Remains
In the event unrecorded cultural resources,
tribal cultural resources, or human remains
are accidentally discovered during
implementation of the project, the MUSD
shall:
Stop all work in the vicinity of the
discovered material, avoid altering the
material and their context in any way,
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to

Date: ________
Page 5-12

Impact
Mitigation Measure
and immediately (within 24 hours) have
the resource evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Project personnel shall not
collect cultural resources. Cultural
resources shall be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist on California Department
of Parks and Recreation Form 523
(Historic Resource Recordation form). In
the event the find is determined to be a
historical or unique archaeological
resource, the qualified archaeologist shall
develop measures, in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which avoid or substantially
lessen potentially significant impacts on
cultural or tribal cultural resources, with
a preference for preservation in place.
Additionally, in accordance with Public
Resource Code Section 5097.993, the
project sponsor shall inform project
personnel that the collection of any
Native American artifact is prohibited by
law. Work could continue in other parts
of the project area while historical or
unique archaeological mitigations take
place.
If human remains are accidently
discovered during construction activities,
the measures specified in Section
15064.5(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines
shall be followed:
o There shall be no further excavation
Implementation
and Timing
any grounddisturbing activities.
Monitoring
Responsibility
measure.

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-13

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
or disturbance of the site or any

nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains until
the Santa Clara coroner is contacted to
determine that no investigation of the
death is required.
o If the coroner determines the remains
to be Native American, the Coroner
shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within
24 hours. The NAHC shall identify
the person or persons it believes to be
most likely descended from the
deceased Native American. The most
likely descendent may make
recommendations to the landowner or
the person responsible for the
excavation work, for means of
treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98; or,
if the NAHC cannot identify the most
likely descendants (MLD), the MLD
fails to make a recommendation, or
the property owner rejects the MLDs
recommendations, the property owner
can rebury the remains and associated
burial goods with appropriate dignity
in an area not subject to ground
disturbance.

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-14

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
Initials: ______
Mitigation Measure CUL-1B: Minimize

and Avoid Impacts to Paleontological
Resources
If paleontological resources are
encountered, work shall avoid altering the
resource and its stratigraphic context until a
qualified paleontologist has evaluated,
recorded, and determined appropriate
treatment of the resource consistent with
protocols of the Society for Vertebrate
Paleontology and in consultation with the
County. Project personnel shall not collect
paleontological resources. Appropriate
treatment may include collection and
processing of standard samples by a
qualified paleontologist to recover
microvertebrate fossils; preparation of
significant fossils to a reasonable point of
identification; and depositing significant
fossils in a museum repository for
permanent curation and storage, together
with an itemized inventory of the
specimens.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1:
Construction and operation of
the McCandless Drive
could result in the release or
potential release of hazardous
materials that pose a risk to
human health and/or the
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Reduce

Risks to Human Health and the
Environment from the Release or
Potential Release of Site Contamination
To reduce the risks to human health and the
environment from the release or potential
release of site contamination (arsenic,
naturally occurring asbestos, and PCBs in
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate this
measure into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and

Date: ________
Page 5-15

Impact
Mitigation Measure
environment.
soil), the MUSD shall obtain DTSC

approval and implement a Final Removal
Action Workplan (RAW) for the proposed
McCandless Drive elementary school site
and implement the plan prior to the start of
any site remediation or construction work.
In accordance with the RAW, contaminated
soil will be addressed as follows:
Soil containing arsenic will be excavated,
transported, and disposed of at an
PCB-containing soils will be treated
using bioremediation consisting of a
proprietary gene-expression product
(Factor ) and soil amendments that
restore indigenous bacteria populations.
NOA in soil will be addressed by
implementation of engineering controls
and institutional controls to reduce
potential exposure. Engineering controls
will include a capping system consisting
of clean fill material, asphalt concrete
paving, building foundations, and/or
landscaping materials. Institutional
controls would include administrative
measures and the implementation of
long-term operation and maintenance of
the capping system.
Impact HAZ-2: The

proposed McCandless Drive
Elementary School Site is
located within 1,500 feet of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Plan for

Rail and Pipeline Emergencies
The MUSD shall incorporate procedures for
rail- and pipeline-related accidents,
Implementation
and Timing
grading,
improvement plans)
documents. An
electronic and paper
copy of the Removal
Action Workplan,
including the DTSCapproved Operations
and Maintenance
Plan, shall be
present at the School
Site at all times.
Timing: Prior to
any site remediation
work under the
oversight of the
DTSC.
Monitoring
Responsibility
of hazards/hazardous
materials measures and
shall monitor for
compliance with DTSC
conditions during site
remediation,
construction, and
operation.
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
develop and
incorporate these
Monitoring: The
appropriate site
Initials: ______

Date: ________
Page 5-16

Impact
Mitigation Measure
railroads, pipelines, and other

facilities that could pose a
risk or hazard to the school.
explosions, or other releases of hazardous

materials into the site health and safety and
emergency response plans. Such procedures
may include:
Hazard identification (i.e. maps with the
location of rail and pipelines that could
pose a risk to the proposed school site)
Annual meetings or correspondence with
pipeline operators to ascertain planned
annual maintenance and repair activities
on pipeline segments in close proximity
to the school site
Potential evacuation routes or shelter-inplace procedures for rail or pipeline
releases of hazardous materials
Contact information for pipeline
operators in the event
Immediate notification of the appropriate
pipeline operator if there any odors or
evidence of gas or liquid leakage from
the pipelines or activities that involve
digging near the pipelines
Implementation
and Timing
procedures into all
appropriate site
handbooks,
documents, policy
manuals, and
administrative
procedures etc.
Timing: Prior to
occupancy of the
school.
Monitoring
Responsibility
of these procedures.
Verified
Implementation
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of hydrology/water
Initials: ______
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Impact HYD-1:
Construction of the proposed
McCandless Drive
could result in erosion,
siltation and other temporary
hydrology and water quality
impacts.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Avoid and

Minimize Polluted Storm Water Runoff
During Construction Activities
To reduce potential construction-related
hydrology and water quality impacts:
The MUSD shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
consistent with the requirements of the
State General Construction Activity
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
hydrology and water
quality mitigation
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and

Date: ________
Page 5-17

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Storm Water Permit. The SWPPP shall
include best management practices
related to materials and waste
management; equipment management
and spill control; earthmoving;
paving/asphalt work; concrete, grout and
mortar application; landscaping; painting
and paint removal; and dewatering, as
applicable, consistent with the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Programs Construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs
shall be commensurate with site-specific
activities and risks to hydrology and
water quality resources.
The MUSD shall prepare an Erosion
Control Plan that reduces /and or
prevents erosion of soil particles and
subsequent off-site migration / siltation
to the maximum extent feasible. The
Erosion Control Plan may be prepared as
a separate document or as part of the
SWPPP described above or the Removal
Action Workplan or other DTSCapproved plan required by Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1.
Impact HYD-2: Operation

could cause or contribute to
potential sources of polluted
runoff.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Ensure

Final Project Design Avoids and
Minimizes Polluted Storm Water Runoff
To reduce potential hydrology and water
quality impacts from the project, the MUSD
shall prepare a Storm Water Control Plan
that, at a minimum:
Implementation
and Timing
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
unless otherwise
specified.
Monitoring
Responsibility
quality measures.
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
develop a Storm
Water Control Plan
and maintain
electronic and paper
copies of the plan at
Monitoring: The
MUSD shall verify the
plan is maintained at the
school site.
Initials: ______

Date: ________
Page 5-18

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Identifies the final impervious / pervious
surface areas associated within final site
design and layout;
Ensures the final project design includes
storm water treatment areas (e.g.,
bioswales, planter boxes, etc.) sized to
meet the requirements of the Santa Clara
Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program. The treatment areas
shall treat runoff by filtering it through a
series of strata such as engineered
permeable soil, pea gravel, and/or drain
rock before directing it out to the campus
storm drain system via perforated sub
drain piping. The treatment areas shall
effectively remove trash and sediment
from runoff water before it is conveyed
to the storm drain system, and shall
reduce runoff volumes by impounding
storm water and encouraging infiltration,
evaporation and evapotranspiration from
vegetation
Identifies the Low Impact Development
(LID) design details incorporated into the
project. Specific LID design may
include, but is not limited to: using
pervious pavements and green roofs,
dispersing runoff to landscaped areas,
and/or routing runoff to rain gardens,
cisterns, swales, and other small-scale
facilities distributed throughout the site.
Ensures that all garbage bins and
receptacles are appropriately contained.
Implementation
and Timing
the school site.
Timing: Prior to
school occupancy.
Monitoring
Responsibility

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-19

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate this
measure into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
unless otherwise
specified.
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of this flood protection
measure. The MUSD
shall verify base flood
elevations with the City
of Milpitas.
Initials: ______
Monitoring: The
appropriate site
Initials: ______
All dumpsters shall be kept closed when

not in immediate use, and dumpsters
shall not be permitted to overflow with
solid waste. If dumpsters are found to
routinely overflow with solid waste, the
MUSD shall acquire an additional
dumpster for use at the school.
Includes a schedule for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of the site
storm drain system.
Impact HYD-3: The
would be located within a
special flood hazard area
subject to an average flood
depth of one foot.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: Raise Final

Building Locations above the Base Flood
Elevation
To reduce potential flooding impacts
associated with FEMA Special Flood
Hazard Area AO, the MUSD shall, in
coordination with the City of Milpitas,
verify the base flood elevation for all final
building locations and raise the lowest
finished floor elevation of each building at
least one foot above the base flood
elevation.
Date: ________
LAND USE AND PLANNING

Impact LAN-1: The
could be inconsistent or
conflict with potentially
See Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Avoid

and Minimize Polluted Storm Water
Runoff During Construction Activities
See Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Ensure
Final Project Design Avoids and
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
develop, plan, and
incorporate joint and
community use

Date: ________
Page 5-20

Impact
Mitigation Measure
applicable City of Milpitas

land use plans, policies, and
regulations.
Minimizes Polluted Storm Water Runoff

See Mitigation Measure HYD-3: Raise
Final Building Locations above the Base
Flood Elevation
See Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Prepare
a Temporary Traffic Control Plan
Mitigation Measure LUP-1: Provide for
Community Use of the School Site
The MUSD shall provide for community
use of the McCandless Drive Elementary
School by:
Coordinating with the Citys park
planning and/or architecture firm to plan,
integrate, and provide joint use
recreational and playground facilities that
serve the needs and interests of the
MUSD, the City of Milpitas, and the
McCandless / Centre Point neighborhood
/ Transit Area community.
Allowing public use of outdoor school
playgrounds and facilities that do not
become subject to an official Joint Use
Agreement governing the long term
operation and maintenance of joint use
facilities. Such public use shall be
permitted only outside of school
operating hours, and shall not apply to
separate, secured Kindergarten play
areas.
Allowing community use of school
buildings for meetings and other events.
Such use may be subject to MUSD
Implementation
and Timing
procedures into all
appropriate site
handbooks,
documents, policy
manuals, and
administrative
procedures etc.
Timing: Prior to
school occupancy.
Monitoring
Responsibility
of these procedures.

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-21

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
noise mitigation
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
unless otherwise
specified.
Monitoring: The
District shall review all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of noise reduction
measures.
Initials: ______
procedures and contractual agreements.

NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Construction
would generate temporary,
construction-related noise
and vibration.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Reduce

Potential Temporary Construction Noise
Levels
To reduce potential temporary,
construction-related increases in ambient
noise levels at sensitive residential
receptors, the MUSD shall, to the maximum
extent feasible:
Ensure all equipment engines are
covered, and that mufflers are in good
working condition
Orient equipment so that engines and
exhaust pipes are away from sensitive
residential areas
Restrict construction work hours to the
hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday
through Saturday
Provide sensitive noise receptors within
300 feet of work areas written notice
prior to the start of construction that
describes the approximate schedule for
the construction activities and a contact
name and phone number for the
construction contractor and MUSD staff
person responsible for handling
construction-related noise complaints.
Site equipment to maximize the distance
to noise sensitive receptors, and to take
advantage of shielding provided by onsite equipment and structures.

Date: ________
Page 5-22

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
develop, plan, and
incorporate joint and
community use
procedures into all
appropriate site
handbooks,
documents, policy
manuals, and
administrative
procedures etc.
Timing: Prior to
Monitoring: The
appropriate site
of these procedures. .
Initials: ______
Use a sound enclosure (e.g., three sides

with a partial top) to shield stationary
noise sources (portable generator, pumps,
compressors, etc.) to reduce job site
noise effects from noise sensitive
receptors. The enclosure should be
placed to provide sufficient ventilation
while providing effective noise control.
Nominally spacing the enclosure 3 to 5
feet from the noise source should be
sufficient. Such an enclosure should
provide approximately 10 to 15 dBA
noise reduction of the equipment noise.
Prohibit use of radios or other amplified
sound devices such that the sound from
these devices is not audible beyond the
projects property line.
Impact NOI-2: The

would result in a permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Minimize and

Avoid School-Related Noise
To reduce potential noise associated with
school operation, the MUSD shall:
If feasible, use a TV-based or other
interior public address (PA) system for
school announcements, bells, and alarms.
If it is not feasible to rely on an interior
announcement system, the MUSD shall:
o Limit the amount of exterior, PA
system speakers, bells, and other
alarms to the minimum amount
feasible
o Orient all PA system speakers, bells,

Date: ________
Page 5-23

Impact
Mitigation Measure
and other alarms away from property
lines (i.e., towards the interior of the
campus) and limit sound levels to the
minimum level necessary to provide
adequate public notification
o Limit morning PA announcements to
no more than five minutes in length
and limit use of the PA for
extraneous announcements to the
maximum extent feasible
o Program all PA system speakers,
bells, and other alarms to operate
only as necessary during school
hours and not during evening hours,
Sundays, or school holidays
All rooftop-mounted heating, vacuum,
and air conditioning equipment shall be
shielded or located behind a wall or other
structure to block mechanical noise
transmission
Implementation
and Timing
school occupancy.
Monitoring
Responsibility
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents. The
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of these measures. The
MUSD shall document
all attempts to
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Impact PSU-1: The
McCandless Drive
could interfere with existing
utility systems located at or
adjacent to the proposed
school site.
Mitigation Measure PSU-1: Minimize

and Avoid Disruptions to Utility Systems
To minimize and avoid disruptions or other
interferences with existing utility systems at
or adjacent to the proposed school site, the
MUSD shall:
Prior to the relocation of the existing
utility easement that borders the
McCandless Drive properties western
property line, coordinate with utility
service providers to ensure potential

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-24

Impact
Mitigation Measure
service disruptions are minimized or
avoided
Ensure the final project design does not
involve the placement of any permanent
structures (e.g., buildings) over utility
easements retained at the school site
(paved roadways or sidewalks are not
considered a permanent structure)
Ensure the final project design is
consistent with all access, maintenance,
and other existing utility easement
provisions and entitlements
Impact PSU-2: McCandless

Drive Elementary School
Project would use, consume,
and generate water,
wastewater, electricity,
natural gas, and solid waste.
Mitigation Measure PSU-2: Reduce

Potable Water Use and Solid Waste
Generation
The MUSD shall, to the extent feasible,
incorporate the following water-saving and
solid waste-reduction features into project
plans and/or school operations:
The MUSD shall use recycled water for
outdoor irrigation / landscaping purposes
The MUSD shall incorporate watersaving features or devices in all new
water using fixtures installed at the
proposed school. This may include, but is
not limited to the use of high efficiency
faucet aerators, shower heads, toilets and
urinals, automatic faucets, or air cooled
or water saving ice machines.
The MUSD shall participate in all
Implementation
and Timing
MUSD shall
document all
easement provisions
and entitlements on
project plans. The
MUSD shall
maintain a list of
service provider
contacts and
conditions with all
project plans.
Timing: Prior to
any grounddisturbing activities.
Monitoring
Responsibility
coordinate with utility
service providers.
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
measures into all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
any school
(i.e., not remedial
activities).
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
of these measures.

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-25

Impact
Implementation
and Timing
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
NA
Timing: NA
Monitoring: NA
Initials: ______
Implementation:
The District shall
incorporate these
traffic mitigation
measures into
appropriate school
policy manuals and
administrative
procedures.
Timing: Policies
and procedures shall
be developed prior
to school
occupancy; events
and information
sharing shall be
done at least
annually or as
requested by the
students, student
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and school
policy manuals,
administrative
procedures, and
operating protocols for
inclusion of trip
reduction / traffic safety
policies.
applicable City of Milpitas solid waste

source reduction and diversion programs.
TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRA-1: The
McCandless Drive
would add AM peak hour,
school peak hour, PM peak
hour, and daily trips to the
circulation and transportation
system in the vicinity of the
school site.
No Mitigation Measures Required.
Impact TRA-2: The

McCandless Drive
could cause or contribute to
conflicts and/or dangerous
interactions between
pedestrians, bicyclists, and
vehicles.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2A: Reduce

School-Related Vehicle Trips
The MUSD shall reduce school-related
vehicle trips by encouraging and promoting
students and staff to walk or bicycle to
school. This shall be accomplished by:
Providing one bicycle parking space per
30 faculty / staff and one bicycle parking
space per 12 students (68 bicycles based
on the Draft EIR description of the
project). Bicycle parking shall be in a
secure area (e.g., fenced and locked),
approximately 600 square feet in size (if
feasible), and shall include racks,
lockers, and other appropriate facilities
(as feasible considering location and
space availability);
Holding promotions and activities to
incentivize alternative modes of
Date: ________

Initials: ______
Date: ________
Page 5-26

Impact
Mitigation Measure
transportation (e.g., prizes and
certificates for students who participate
in walk / bike-to-school programs,
competitions to see which grade level
avoids the most vehicle trips);
Organized school-wide walk and bike-toschool day, week, etc.
Registering the McCandless Drive school
with 511.orgs SchoolPool RideMatch
Service
(https://www.schoolpool.511.org/),
providing information to parents about
the program, and encouraging parents to
register with the program for carpool
and/or other trip sharing opportunities.
Implementing a Travel Demand
Management (TDM) Program for
McCandless Drive Elementary School
employees. As part of the program, the
school shall designate a central TDM
Coordinator to oversee the TDM
Program and identify carpool or other
trip reduction opportunities, such as, but
not limited to, reduced fare transit passes
and preferential parking for carpool
vehicles. As part of the Program, the
TDM Coordinator shall survey school
employees once per year to ascertain the
most current transportation mode split for
school employees and the effectiveness
of the TDM Program.
Implementation
and Timing
parents, and/or staff.
On-site traffic
supervision shall
occur each day
school is in session.
Monitoring
Responsibility

Verified
Implementation
Page 5-27

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Mitigation Measure TRA-2B: Reduce

Off-Site Student Loading and Unloading
The MUSD and/or school staff shall prepare
and implement a formal, written policy
outlining student loading and unloading
procedures for the McCandless Drive
Elementary School Campus. The policy
shall:
Describe the student loading and
unloading areas at the Campus
Contain a map depicting student loading
and unloading areas
Explicitly describe that off-campus
student loading and unloading on
McCandless Drive (except in designated
zones), DeLong Lane, Lee Way, and
other adjacent properties is admonished
and discouraged by MUSD
The MUSD shall provide this policy to
parents via school newsletters or other
materials (e.g., Back-to-School Night
presentations) at least once a year and shall
maintain an electronic copy of the policy on
the schools website at all times.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2C: Suggested
Routes to School
The MUSD, in coordination with the City
of Milpitas, shall prepare a Suggested
Routes to School Map for the proposed
McCandless Drive Elementary School. The
map shall identify facilities such as traffic
lights, crosswalks, and Class I and II
Verified
Implementation
Page 5-28

Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
The MUSD shall
incorporate these
mitigation measures
into all appropriate
bid, contract, and
Monitoring: The
appropriate bid,
contract, and
(building, grading,
improvement plans)
Initials: ______
bikeways that promote safe routes to school

and, to the maximum extent practicable,
shall advise against use of:
Routes that cross at-grade railroad tracks
within the school attendance area; and
Travel along Montague Expressway,
between Great Mall Parkway and
McCandless Drive.
The MUSD shall provide this map to
parents via school newsletters or other
materials (e.g., Back-to-School Night
presentations) at least once a year and shall
maintain an electronic copy of the map on
the schools website at all times. The
MUSD shall also provide the map to the
City of Milpitas Clean and Safe Streets
Program.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2D: On-Site
Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Control
The MUSD shall supervise and control
pedestrian travel across on-site crosswalks
during the peak travel times (immediately
before school starts and immediately after
school is dismissed). Such supervision may
be provided by school staff.
Impact TRA-3: The
McCandless Drive
would temporarily interfere
with normal traffic and
pedestrian operations on
McCandless Drive.
Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Prepare a

Temporary Traffic Control Plan
The MUSD and/or its contractor shall
prepare and implement a temporary traffic
control plan that minimizes disruptions to
circulation and emergency access on and
through McCandless Drive during

Date: ________
Page 5-29

Impact
Mitigation Measure
construction of the McCandless Drive
roadway improvements. The plan should
provide for safe travel through work zones
by providing clear notifications and alerts
regarding lane and/or sidewalk closures and
alternate routes around construction areas.
Two opposite lanes of traffic flow should be
provided as feasible; however, flaggers or
other appropriate controls (e.g., signals)
shall be used to control traffic if alternate
one-way traffic flow is required. The
MUSD shall provide a copy of the
temporary traffic control plan to the City of
Milpitas Traffic Engineering Department
for review and approval prior to the start of
any roadway improvements.
Implementation
and Timing
grading,
improvement plans)
documents.
Timing: Prior to
any grounddisturbing activities
within the
McCandless Drive
right-of-way.
Monitoring
Responsibility
of traffic control
measures.
Verified
Implementation
Implementation:
See Mitigation
Measures TRA-2A
to TRA-2D
Timing: See
Mitigation Measures
TRA-2A to TRA-2D
Monitoring: See
Mitigation Measures
TRA-2A to TRA-2D
Initials: ______
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact CML-1: The
McCandless Drive
would add AM peak hour,
school PM peak hour, and
daily trips to the circulation
and transportation system in
the vicinity of the school site
under cumulative conditions.
See Mitigation Measure TRA-2A:

Reduce School-Related Vehicle Trips
Mitigation Measure TRA-2B: Reduce
Off-Site Student Loading and Unloading
Mitigation Measure TRA-2C: Suggested
Routes to School
Mitigation Measure TRA-2D: On-Site
Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Control

Date: ________
Page 5-30

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project

Final Environmental Impact Report
APPENDIX K
Draft EIR / Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR Distribution List


MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (MUSD)

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE MCCANDLESS DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
DISTRIBUTION LIST - NOVEMBER 2015
The following agencies and interested parties receive a copy of the Notice of Availability of an
Environmental Impact Report for the MUSDs McCandless Drive Elementary School Project.
CEQA State Responsible and Trustee Agencies
(To be sent by the State Clearinghouse / MUSD):
Materials Distributed
Governors Office of Planning and Research

State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Notice of Completion
Notice of Availability
Electronic Document Transmittal
Summary Form (15 copies)
EIR on CD (15 copies)
EIR Distribution List
The State Clearinghouse will send copies to the

following state agencies:
Air Resources Board
Department of Education
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Region 3)
Native American Heritage Commission
Office of Public School Construction
Regional Water Quality Control Board #2 (San
Francisco Bay)
Department of Water Resources
The MUSD will send copies to the following state
agencies:
Sacramento Field Office
8800 Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826-3200
Attn: Cheryl Mahoney
Department of Transportation (District 4)
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Attn: Brian Brandert
EIR on CD
McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Draft EIR Notice of Availability Distribution List
Local Responsible Agencies

(To be sent by the MUSD):
Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Planning and Research, Air Quality Planning
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
EIR on CD
City of Milpitas
Planning and Neighborhood Services Department
Milpitas, CA 95035
EIR on CD
City of Milpitas
Engineering Department
Milpitas, CA 95035
EIR on CD
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
ATTN: Ray Molseed
EIR on CD
Federal Agencies (To be sent by the MUSD):
US Army Corps of Engineers

San Francisco District
1455 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
EIR on CD
US Fish and Wildlife Service

San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300
Sacramento, CA 95814
EIR on CD
County Clerk (To be sent by the MUSD):
Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorders Office

70 West Hedding Street (at First Street)
San Jose, CA 95110
Interested Individuals and Organizations

City of San Jose Planning Division

200 East Santa Clara Street
Tower, 3rd Floor
San Jos, CA 95113-1905
EIR on CD
Current Occupant
1752 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Occupant
1757 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Michele M. Gray, Trustee
Michele M. Gray Property Trust
5334 Elrose Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124
Also Mailed to:
Steve Hanleigh
Realty Center
1262 East Hamilton Avenue, Ste. 1c
Campbell, CA 95008
Current Occupant
1810 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
AT&T Tool and Die Company

1811 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
D&D Precision Grinding, Inc.

1813 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Air 7 Seas
1815 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035

Current Occupant
1819 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
A-1 Machining
480 Gianni Street
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Current Occupant
1821 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Wally Trumpp
1540 Industrial Avenue
San Jose, CA 95112
Current Occupant
1823 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Roy and Cathleen Mollard
P.O. Box 1235
Saratoga, CA 95071
Current Occupant
1825 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Vangie Figueroa
2120 Uridas Ranch Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Tao He, Lingyun Meng, Fei Chen, & Na Gao

1829 Houret Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Fei Chen & Na Gao

47900 Warm Springs Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94539

Carls Junior
1890 McCandless Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
EIR on CD
Current Occupant
231 Houret Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Daniel H. Smith Jr., Trustee
D.J. Smith Family Partnership, LP
4208 Chaboya Road
San Jose, CA 95148
Current Occupant
247 Houret Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
William Isackson, President
William Isackson Company
2101 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
And
William Isackson, President
William Isackson Company
840 Seabury Road
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Current Occupant
271 Houret Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
Also Mailed to:
Dennis Bridgman
Robert Houret Construction Company
5570 Sanchez Drive, Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95123
The following properties in the vicinity of the project were also sent a copy of the Notice of Availability:
6
Current Resident
1791 Mccandless Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
185 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
177 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
181 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1892 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1872 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1880 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1876 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1896 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1828 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1836 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1856 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1860 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1816 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1832 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1820 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1800 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1796 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1812 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1804 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1753 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1749 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1757 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1745 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1789 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1805 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1793 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1781 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
7
Current Resident
1809 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1784 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1841 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1717 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1792 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1729 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1725 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1733 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1848 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1737 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1837 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1721 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1829 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1833 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1701 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1705 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
178 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1813 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
186 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1677 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1653 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1633 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1709 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1609 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1757 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1745 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1789 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1805 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1793 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1781 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1809 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1784 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1841 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1717 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1792 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1729 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
8
Current Resident
1725 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1733 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1848 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1737 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1837 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1721 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1829 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1833 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1701 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1705 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
178 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1813 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
186 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1677 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1653 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1633 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1709 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1609 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1757 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1745 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1789 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1805 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1793 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1781 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1809 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1784 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1841 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1717 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1792 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1729 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1725 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1733 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1848 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1737 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1837 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1721 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
9
Current Resident
1829 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1833 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1701 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1705 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
178 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1813 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
186 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1677 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1653 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1633 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1709 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1609 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1757 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1745 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1789 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1805 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1793 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1781 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1809 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1784 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1841 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1717 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1792 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1729 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1725 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1733 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1848 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1737 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1837 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1721 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1829 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1833 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1701 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1705 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
178 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1813 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
10
Current Resident
186 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1677 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1653 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1633 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1709 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1609 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1825 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1661 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1936 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1649 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1637 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1673 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1693 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1932 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1645 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1681 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1924 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1605 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1928 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1697 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1617 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1613 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1625 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1669 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
182 Delong Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1604 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1636 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1624 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1628 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1620 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1612 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
11
Current Resident
1825 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1661 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1936 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1632 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1608 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1672 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1656 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1684 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1660 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1616 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1676 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1680 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1688 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1668 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1652 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1696 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1728 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1700 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1704 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1732 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1708 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1716 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1724 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1776 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1760 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1768 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1748 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1756 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
279 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
12
Current Resident
267 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
271 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
283 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
275 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
263 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1968 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
280 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1956 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
272 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1972 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1960 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1964 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
284 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
276 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1925 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1984 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1996 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1992 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1988 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1980 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1761 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
264 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1929 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1941 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1937 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1945 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
216 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
252 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
251 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
248 Currin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
13
Current Resident
235 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
244 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
243 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
236 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
247 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
228 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
220 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
256 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
212 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
255 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
208 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
240 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2060 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
215 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2056 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
211 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
207 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
184 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
192 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
227 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
219 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
196 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2052 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
180 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
223 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2048 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2040 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2044 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
200 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1933 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
172 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
168 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
160 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
156 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
152 Currlin Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035
14
Current Resident
1953 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1957 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1961 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1965 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1969 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1973 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1853 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1857 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1861 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1865 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1905 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1913 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1917 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1873 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1877 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1881 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1889 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1893 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1897 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1981 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1985 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1989 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
1997 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2001 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2005 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2009 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2013 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2017 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2025 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2029 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2033 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2037 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2041 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2053 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2057 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2045 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
15
Current Resident
2061 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2069 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2073 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2077 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2081 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2085 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2089 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2093 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2097 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Current Resident
2101 Lee Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
4520 Niland St
Union City, CA 94587
Harmony Homeowner
11852 Stoney Bay Circle
Carmel, IN 46033
Harmony Homeowner
22 Pond Court
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
280 Summergrove Circle
Roseville, CA 95678
Harmony Homeowner
1747 Mccandless
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
4329 Calypso Terrace
Fremont, CA 94555
Harmony Homeowner
1025 Continental Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Harmony Homeowner
2814 Willow Bend Way
San Ramon, CA 94582
Harmony Homeowner
P.O. Box 362127
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
172 Stockwell Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
Harmony Homeowner
1296 Lakeshore Circle
San Jose, CA 95131
Harmony Homeowner
214 Peppermint Tree
Terrace #3
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Harmony Homeowner
284 Mazey St.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
181 El Verano Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Harmony Homeowner
1101 East River Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Harmony Homeowner
1116 Di Napoli Drive
San Jose, CA 95129
Harmony Homeowner
PO Box 361043
Milpitas, CA 95036
Harmony Homeowner
44157 Glendora Drive
Fremont, CA 94539
Harmony Homeowner
34357 Eucalyptus
Terrace
Fremont, CA 94555
Harmony Homeowner
40916 Abuelo Way
Fremont, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
41044 Janice Street
Fremont, CA 94539
Harmony Homeowner
711 Navajo Way
Fremont, CA 94539
Harmony Homeowner
12175 Candy Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
Harmony Homeowner
1852 Grnad Teton Dr.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Harmony Homeowner
P.O. Box 360343
Milpitas, CA 0
Harmony Homeowner
1902 Oak Knoll Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
16
Harmony Homeowner
PO Box 360070
Milpitas, CA 0
Harmony Homeowner
1923 Hollyview Drive
San Ramon, CA 94582
Harmony Homeowner
4125 Horizon Lane
San Jose, CA 95148
Harmony Homeowner
1599 Canal Street
Milpitas, CA 0
Harmony Homeowner
4021 Louvre Avenue
San Jose, CA 95135
Harmony Homeowner
14287 Chester Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Harmony Homeowner
2801 Western Ave Apt 221
Seattle, WA 0
Harmony Homeowner
47484 Avalon Heights
Terrace
Fremont, CA 94539
Harmony Homeowner
44653 Japala Place
Fremont, CA 94539

McCandless FinalEIR 20160114 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

McCandless FinalEIR 20160114 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project

Final EnvironmEntal impact rEport

Milpitas Unified School District

MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This page intentionally left blank.

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Final EIR January 2016

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

Full Phrase or Description

Americans with Disabilities Act

American Institute of Architects California Council

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Best Management Practice

Coalition for Adequate Student Housing

California Emissions Estimator Model

California Department of Transportation

California Building Code

California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)

Council of Educational Facility Planners

California Environmental Quality Act

California Public Utilities Commission

Division of the State Architect

Department of Toxic Substances Control

Environmental Impact Report

Low Impact Development

Most Likely Descendant

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

Milpitas Unified School District

Native American Heritage Commission

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Personal Rapid Transit

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols

LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS

Full Phrase or Description

Sunnyhills Neighborhood Association

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

Transit Area Specific Plan

Travel Demand Management

Transportation Impact Analysis

United Stated Environmental Protection Agency

Voluntary Cleanup Agreement

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Final EIR January 2016

The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.

Comments and recommendations on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.

Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR

FINAL EIR ORGANIZATION

Chapter 2, Additional Information, describes and summarizes additional information

Chapter 4, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, includes a copy of the

Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, includes the MUSDs

Appendix K, Draft EIR / Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR Distribution List,

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Final EIR January 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

McCandless Drive Elementary School Project Final EIR January 2016

School Design Awards

Vapor Barrier as Part of Project

City of Milpitas District Project / Houret Drive Fire Access

REMOVAL ACTION WORKPLAN